DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the last line of the claim, the semicolon should be replaced by a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “third position” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 which does not recite a “third position”. For purposes of examination, claim 6 is being construed as depending from claim 3 which recites a third position.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sotokawauchi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0076745 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sotokawauchi discloses a clamping frame for being used in the vacuum form tooling (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Sotokawauchi, clamping unit #6 capable of being used in a vacuum forming apparatus #1; [0023] of Sotokawauchi, clamping unit #6 has a frame-like shape), the clamping frame being adapted to clamp a film portion to be laminated on a substrate element or to be molded on a molding tool ([0023], FIG. 2 of Sotokawauchi, clamp #61 of clamping unit #6 holds edges of cover #9), the clamping frame further comprising a coupling to be coupled to a guide and/or a drive ([0024] of Sotokawauchi, clamping unit #6 includes an up and down unit configured to move the clamp up and down and a sliding mechanism configured to slide the clamp in a horizontal direction; the up and down unit and slide mechanism would necessarily be coupled to the clamping unit #6), wherein the clamping frame may be a three-dimensional clamping frame and/or may include multiple clamping frame elements (FIG. 2 of Sotokawauchi, clamping unit #6 occupies 3-dimensional space and is made up of a plurality of elements), wherein at least one clamping frame element is movable relative to another clamping frame element, wherein the movement may be a translational and/or rotational movement ([0023] of Sotokawauchi, clamp #61 of clamping unit #6 is configured to switch between holding and releasing positions according to reciprocating motion of a cylinder).
Sotokawauchi does not specifically disclose that the clamping unit for being used in the vacuum form tooling according to claim 1. Moreover, Sotokawauchi discloses the clamping unit to clamp a cover #9 for lamination to a base member #8 in a vacuum form tooling (FIGS. 1 and 8 of Sotokawauchi) but does not disclose the specific tooling of claim 1. The clamping unit of Sotokawauchi, however, is configured to move horizontally from a position between upper and lower dies to a position outside the dies for heating and vertically between the dies during the lamination proves ([0024] of Sotokawauchi). The clamping unit of Sotokawauchi is therefore capable of being used in the vacuum form tooling according to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuert (U.S. Patent No. 5,108,529) in view of Sotokawauchi.
Regarding claim 1, Shuert discloses a vacuum form tooling particularly for a press lamination system or for a vacuum lamination system (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Shuert, vacuum forming apparatus including upper and lower molds #12 #14 and clamp frame #18), the vacuum form tooling comprising: a lower mold, being adapted to be negatively pressurized (FIG. 1, 3:60-63 of Shuert, lower mold #14 which includes passages #14d connected with vacuum equipment), wherein the lower mold is adapted to support at least one substrate element to be laminated or to provide at least one molding tool to be molded (FIG. 1 of Shuert, lower mold #12 is a molding tool; FIGS. 5 and 10 of Shuert, lower mold #14 adapted to support lower plastic sheet #16 for lamination to upper sheet #20) and; an upper mold, being adapted to be negatively pressurized (FIG. 1, 3:47-49 of Shuert, upper mold #12 which comprises passages #12d connected with vacuum equipment), wherein the upper mold can be moved towards the lower mold from an open position to a closed position (FIG. 2 of Shuert, upper mold #12 can be moved downward toward lower mold #14), wherein in the closed position, the at least one substrate element can be laminated, or the at least one molding tool can be molded (FIGS. 4 and 10 of Shuert); and a clamping frame, being adapted to clamp a film portion to be laminated on the at least one substrate element or to be molded onto the at least one molding tool (FIGS. 1 and 7 of Shuert, clamp frame #18 which holds lower sheet #16 for vacuum forming on lower mold and upper sheet #20 for laminating to lower sheet #16), wherein in a first position, the clamping frame is positioned relative to the upper mold in a way that the clamped film portion can be sucked at least partially into the negatively pressurized upper mold (FIGS. 2 and 3 of Shuert), and wherein in the second position, the clamping frame is positioned relative to the lower mold in a way that the clamped film portion can be sucked for lamination or molding on the at least one substrate element, or molding tool, respectively of the negatively pressurized lower mold (FIGS. 4 and 5 of Shuert).
Shuert does not specifically disclose the clamping frame being moveable from the first position to the second position. Moreover, Shuert discloses moving the upper and lower dies relative to the frame #18 (FIGS. 2 and 4 of Shuert) rather than the frame relative to the upper and lower dies. Sotokawauchi, however, discloses a vacuum lamination process wherein a cover is laminated to a base member between upper and lower dies (Abstract, FIGS. 2 and 8 of Shuert) wherein the frame is moved vertically between the dies during the lamination process ([0024] of Sotokawauchi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the clamp frame relative to the upper and lower dies rather than the upper and lower dies relative to the clamp frame in the apparatus of Shuert since Sotokawauchi establishes that it was known to do so in a vacuum forming method. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3, Shuert discloses that the clamping frame, is configured to be moveable to a third position, wherein the third position is a position arranged outside an interspace formed by the upper mold and the lower mold (FIG. 1, 3:66-4:3 of Shuert, plastic sheet #16 moved from oven station by clamp frame #18 into position between spaced upper and lower molds).
Regarding claim 4, Shuert discloses the vacuum form tooling further including a heating device, the heating device being adapted to heat the clamped film portion (FIG. 1, 3:66-4:3 of Shuert, apparatus includes an oven station for heating plastic sheet #16 held by clamp frame #18).
Regarding claim 6, Sotokawauchi suggests the vacuum form tooling further including a clamping frame drive, being assigned to the clamping frame, wherein the clamping frame drive is adapted to move the clamping frame from the first to the second and/or third position ([0024] of Sotokawauchi, apparatus includes a servo mechanism for moving the clamp up and down between the upper and lower dies or from the first to the second position; claim only requires movement between two of the three recited positions).
Regarding claim 8, Sotokawauchi discloses that the clamping frame is a three-dimensional clamping frame, and/or wherein the clamping frame includes multiple clamping frame elements (FIG. 2 of Sotokawauchi, clamping unit #6 occupies 3-dimensional space and is made up of a plurality of elements), wherein at least one clamping frame element is movable relative to another clamping frame element, wherein the movement may be a translational and/or rotational movement ([0023] of Sotokawauchi, clamp #61 of clamping unit #6 is configured to switch between holding and releasing positions according to reciprocating motion of a cylinder).
Regarding claim 9, Shuert discloses that the vacuum form tooling further comprises a cutting device, such as a punching device, for cutting excess film portions after lamination (6:3-6 of Shuert, edges of vacuum formed structure trimmed; apparatus of Shuert therefore necessarily includes a device for trimming or cutting), or wherein the clamping frame is adapted to clamp a film portion, being an exactly cut film portion in a way that no excess film portions are present after lamination (claim only requires one of the recited alternatives).
Regarding claim 10, Shuert does not specifically disclose the vacuum form tooling further comprising an adhesive apply device, for applying adhesive on the at least one substrate element and/or the film portion, wherein the adhesive supply device may include at least one nozzle for spraying adhesive on the at least one substrate element and/or the film portion. Sotokawauchi, however, discloses applying an adhesive to a base member in a vacuum lamination process ([0041] of Sotokawauchi). According to Sotokawauchi, as a result of applying the adhesive, the cover is intimately attached to the base member ([0053] of Sotokawauchi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified apparatus with an adhesive apply device in order to apply adhesive to one of the components being laminated/molded. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to intimately attach the components together as taught by Sotokawauchi ([0053] of Sotokawauchi). Regarding the limitation that “the adhesive supply device may include at least one nozzle for spraying adhesive on the at least one substrate element and/or the film portion”, it is noted that the claim recites that the nozzle “may” be included and is therefore not a required component of the tooling.
Regarding claim 18, Shuert does not specifically disclose the vacuum form tooling further including an IR heating device being adapted to heat the clamped film portion. Sotokawauchi, however discloses including an IR heating device for pre-heating the cover clamped with the clamping unit ([0025] of Sotokawauchi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to including an IR heating device being adapted to heat the clamped film portion in the modified method since Sotokawauchi establishes that it was known to use such a heating device in a vacuum lamination process. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuert in view of Sotokawauchi as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tateyama et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0231817 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Shuert does not disclose that the lower mold is a stationary mold. Moreover, Shuert discloses that the lower mold is vertically movable between a lower position and an upper position while the clamping frame is stationary (FIGS. 4 and 10 of Shuert). As set forth above, however, Sotokawauchi suggests configuring the apparatus of Shuert to vertically move the clamp frame rather than the upper and lower molds during the vacuum forming process (see analysis of claim 1 above). Tateyama discloses a vacuum forming method wherein a thermoformed sheet is clamped to an upper die (FIG. 1B of Tateyama), vacuum formed against the upper die (FIG. 1C of Tateyama) and the upper die including the clamp is then lowered to close the upper mold against a stationary lower mold (FIG. 1D of Tateyama). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the upper mold and clamp against a stationary lower mold in the method of Shuert since Sotokawauchi and Tateyama establish that it was known to do so in a vacuum forming method. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Shuert does not disclose that the clamping frame is configured to be moved from the first to the second position by the upper mold, when the upper mold moves from the open position to the closed position. Tateyama, however, discloses a vacuum forming process (FIG. 1 of Tateyama) wherein a thermoplastic resin plate #15 is clamped and held by the upper die, vacuum formed into the upper mold and the upper die is then moved into the closed position against the lower die (FIG. 1 of Tateyama). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the clamping frame in the modified process to move with the upper mold since Tateyama establishes that it was known to configure a vacuum forming apparatus in this manner. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuert in view of Sotokawauchi as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Reed et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0003322 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Shuert does not specifically disclose the vacuum form tooling further comprising a controller configured to control the tooling to perform operations comprising: move the upper mold to the open position; apply a negative pressure to the upper mold in order to suck a film portion clamped by the clamping frame at least partially into the negatively pressurized upper mold; move the upper mold to the closed position and the clamping frame to the second position; apply a negative pressure to the lower mold in order to suck a film portion clamped by the clamping frame for lamination or molding on the at least one substrate element, or molding tool, respectively of the negatively pressurized lower mold. Sotokawauchi, however, discloses using a controller to apply vacuum to a mold and to move a clamping frame vertically between upper and lower molds and horizontally in a vacuum lamination process ([0022] and [0024] of Sotokawauchi). Reed similarly discloses a vacuum forming system comprising upper and lower molds wherein the opening and closing of the upper mold is controlled by a controller (Abstract, [0035] of Reed). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a controller configured to move the upper moldsand apply negative pressure to the molds in the modified apparatus since Sotokawauchi and Reed establish that it was known to use such a controller in a vacuum forming apparatus. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuert in view of Reed and Sotokawauchi.
Regarding claim 12, Shuert discloses a press lamination system for vacuum lamination or for vacuum forming (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Shuert, vacuum forming apparatus including upper and lower molds #12 #14 and clamp frame #18), the press lamination system including at least one vacuum form tooling comprising: a lower mold, being adapted to be negatively pressurized (FIG. 1, 3:60-63 of Shuert, lower mold #14 which includes passages #14d connected with vacuum equipment), wherein the lower mold is adapted to support at least one substrate element to be laminated or to provide at least one molding tool to be molded (FIG. 1 of Shuert, lower mold #12 is a molding tool; FIGS. 5 and 10 of Shuert, lower mold #14 adapted to support lower plastic sheet #16 for lamination to upper sheet #20) and; an upper mold, being adapted to be negatively pressurized (FIG. 1, 3:47-49 of Shuert, upper mold #12 which comprises passages #12d connected with vacuum equipment), wherein the upper mold can be moved towards the lower mold from an open position to a closed position (FIG. 2 of Shuert, upper mold #12 can be moved downward toward lower mold #14), wherein in the closed position, the at least one substrate element can be laminated, or the at least one molding tool can be molded (FIGS. 4 and 10 of Shuert); and a clamping frame, being adapted to clamp a film portion to be laminated on the at least one substrate element or to be molded onto the at least one molding tool (FIGS. 1 and 7 of Shuert, clamp frame #18 which holds lower sheet #16 for vacuum forming on lower mold and upper sheet #20 for laminating to lower sheet #16), wherein in a first position, the clamping frame is positioned relative to the upper mold in a way that the clamped film portion can be sucked at least partially into the negatively pressurized upper mold (FIGS. 2 and 3 of Shuert), and wherein in a second position, the clamping frame is positioned relative to the lower mold in a way that the clamped film portion can be sucked for lamination or molding on the at least one substrate element, or molding tool, respectively of the negatively pressurized lower mold (FIGS. 4 and 5 of Shuert).
Shuert does not specifically disclose at least one base body for receiving the lower mold and at least one drive for moving the upper mold towards the lower mold from an open position to a closed position. Reed, however, discloses a vacuum forming system comprising upper and lower molds (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Reed) wherein the lower mold is located on a table or base (FIG. 1 of Reed, table #110) and wherein an actuator (i.e., a drive) is used to displace the upper mold toward the lower mold (FIG. 1, [0035] of Reed). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the table and upper mold actuator of Reed in the modified apparatus since Reed establishes that it was known to incorporate such components in a vacuum forming apparatus. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Shuert does not specifically disclose the clamping frame being moveable from the first position to the second position. Moreover, Shuert discloses moving the upper and lower dies relative to the frame #18 (FIGS. 2 and 4 of Shuert) rather than the frame relative to the upper and lower dies. Sotokawauchi, however, discloses a vacuum lamination process wherein a cover is laminated to a base member between upper and lower dies (Abstract, FIGS. 2 and 8 of Shuert) wherein the frame is moved vertically between the dies during the lamination process ([0024] of Sotokawauchi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the clamp frame relative to the upper and lower dies rather than the upper and lower dies relative to the clamp frame in the apparatus of Shuert since Sotokawauchi establishes that it was known to do so in a vacuum forming method. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Shuert discloses the system further comprising a vacuum system for negatively pressurizing the lower mold and the upper mold (3:47-49 and 3:60-63 of Shuert).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuert in view of Reed and Sotokawauchi as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Kiefer (U.S. Patent No. 4,252,518).
Regarding claim 13, Shuert does not disclose the press lamination system further comprising a conveyor device for automated feeding of substrate elements and/or film portions, and/or for automated removal of film laminated substrate elements. Kiefer, however, discloses a vacuum forming machine comprising a conveyor for feeding blanks to the vacuum forming station (FIG. 1, 2:19-32 of Kiefer, conveyor #3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a conveyor device for automated feeding of film portions in the modified apparatus since Kiefer establishes that it was known to include such conveying devices in vaccum forming machines (FIG. 1 of Kiefer, conveyor #3). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuert in view of Reed, Sotokawauchi and Tateyama.
Regarding claim 15, Shuert discloses a vacuum lamination or forming method using a press lamination system of the type comprising at least one vacuum form tooling (Abstract, FIGS. 1-10 of Shuert, vacuum forming method using vacuum forming apparatus including upper and lower molds #12 #14 and clamp frame #18) comprising: a lower mold, being adapted to be negatively pressurized (FIG. 1, 3:60-63 of Shuert, lower mold #14 which includes passages #14d connected with vacuum equipment), wherein the lower mold is adapted to support at least one substrate element to be laminated or to provide at least one molding tool to be molded (FIG. 1 of Shuert, lower mold #12 is a molding tool; FIGS. 5 and 10 of Shuert, lower mold #14 adapted to support lower plastic sheet #16 for lamination to upper sheet #20) and; an upper mold, being adapted to be negatively pressurized (FIG. 1, 3:47-49 of Shuert, upper mold #12 which comprises passages #12d connected with vacuum equipment), wherein the upper mold can be moved towards the lower mold from an open position to a closed position (FIG. 2 of Shuert, upper mold #12 can be moved downward toward lower mold #14), wherein in the closed position, the at least one substrate element can be laminated, or the at least one molding tool can be molded (FIGS. 4 and 10 of Shuert); and a clamping frame, being adapted to clamp a film portion to be laminated on the at least one substrate element or to be molded onto the at least one molding tool (FIGS. 1 and 7 of Shuert, clamp frame #18 which holds lower sheet #16 for vacuum forming on lower mold and upper sheet #20 for laminating to lower sheet #16), wherein in a first position, the clamping frame is positioned relative to the upper mold in a way that the clamped film portion can be sucked at least partially into the negatively pressurized upper mold (FIGS. 2 and 3 of Shuert), and wherein in a second position, the clamping frame is positioned relative to the lower mold in a way that the clamped film portion can be sucked for lamination or molding on the at least one substrate element, or molding tool, respectively of the negatively pressurized lower mold (FIGS. 4 and 5 of Shuert); the method comprising: moving an upper mold to its open position (FIG. 1 of Shuert, hold in open position); clamping a film portion in a clamping frame (FIG. 1 of Shuert, lower sheet #16 clamped to frame #18); optionally, applying adhesive on the film portion and/or the at least one substrate element (step is optional and therefore not required); optionally, heating the film portion, using a heating device (step is optional and therefore not required; 3:66-4:3 of Shuert, clamped lower sheet #16 heated); arranging at least one substrate element or a molding tool on the lower mold (FIGS. 1-2 of Shuert, lower mold #14); moving the clamping frame to the first position (FIG. 1 of Shuert, clamping frame in position between upper and lower molds); applying a negative pressure to the upper mold in order to suck the film portion clamped by the clamping frame at least partially into the negatively pressurized upper mold (FIGS. 2-3 of Shuert, lower sheet #16 sucked into upper mold #12); applying a negative pressure to the lower mold in order to suck the film portion clamped by the clamping frame for lamination on the at least one substrate element supported by the negatively pressurized lower mold, or for molding onto the at least one molding tool of the negatively pressurized lower mold (FIGS. 4-5 of Shuert, lower sheet #16 sucked into lower mold); laminating the clamped film portion on the at least one substrate element, or molding the clamped film portion onto the at least one molding tool (FIG. 6 of Shuert, clamped lower sheet #16 molded onto bottom mold #14); moving the upper mold out of the closed position (5:67-6:6 of Shuert, upper mold raised to allow removal of vacuum formed product).
Shuert does not specifically disclose at least one base body for receiving the lower mold and at least one drive for moving the upper mold towards the lower mold from an open position to a closed position. Reed, however, discloses a vacuum forming system comprising upper and lower molds (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Reed) wherein the lower mold is located on a table or base (FIG. 1 of Reed, table #110) and wherein an actuator (i.e., a drive) is used to displace the upper mold toward the lower mold (FIG. 1, [0035] of Reed). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the table and upper mold actuator of Reed in the modified apparatus since Reed establishes that it was known to incorporate such components in a vacuum forming apparatus. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Shuert does not specifically disclose the clamping frame being moveable from the first position to the second position or moving the upper mold to the closed position and moving the clamping frame to the second position. Moreover, Shuert discloses moving the upper and lower dies relative to the frame #18 (FIGS. 2 and 4 of Shuert) rather than the frame relative to the upper and lower dies and moving both dies toward one another to close the mold (FIGS. 2 and 4 of Shuert). Sotokawauchi, however, discloses a vacuum lamination process wherein a cover clamped to a frame is laminated to a base member between upper and lower dies (Abstract, FIGS. 2 and 8 of Shuert) and wherein the frame is moved vertically between the dies during the lamination process ([0024] of Sotokawauchi). Tateyama discloses a vacuum forming method wherein a thermoformed sheet is clamped to an upper die (FIG. 1B of Tateyama), vacuum formed against the upper die (FIG. 1C of Tateyama) and the upper die and clamp is then lowered to close against a stationary lower mold (FIG. 1D of Tateyama). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the clamp frame relative to the upper and lower dies rather than the upper and lower dies relative to the clamp frame and to move to upper mold and clamp against a stationary lower mold in the method of Shuert since Sotokawauchi and Tateyama establish that it was known to do so in a vacuum forming method. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Shuert discloses the method further including cutting excess film portions using a cutting device from the film laminated substrate element, or the molded film part (6:3-6 of Shuert, edges of vacuum formed structure trimmed).
Regarding claim 17, Shuert discloses the method further including removing the film laminated substrate element or the molded film part from the lower mold (5:67-6:3 of Shuert, structure removed from molds after vacuum forming).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuert in view of Reed and Sotokawauchi as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Hepworth (U.S. Patent No. 3,751,208).
Regarding claim 1, Shuert does not disclose the press lamination system further comprising at least one guide for guiding the movement of the clamping frame from the first to the second position. Hepworth, however, discloses a vacuum forming machine wherein a clamping frame is vertically movable into contact with a lower mold via guides (FIG. 1 of Hepworth, clamping frame #29 vertically movable on vertical guide pillars #21). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide vertical guides for the clamping frame in the modified system since Hepworth establishes that it was known to use such guides in vacuum form tooling. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746