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 .
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the non-final Office Action dated December18, 2025 was submitted on April 20, 2026. Claims 1, 11, 12 and 15 were amended. Claim 2 was canceled. Claims 1 and 3-19 are currently pending.
The amendments to claim 6 have overcome the objection to that claim (¶¶ 4-5 of the Office Action). The objection to claim 6 has therefore been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1, 11, 12 and 15 have overcome the prior art rejections of claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 (¶¶ 8-10 and 14-43 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection of claim 11 have been made as detailed below.
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 Bibeau (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0017227 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Bibeau discloses a clamping frame for being used in the vacuum form tooling (Abstract, [0003], FIG. 2 of Bibeau, clamping frame #38 used for vacuum forming), 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 ([0014] of Bibeau, vinyl sheet clamped onto frame for molding in a vacuum mold), the clamping frame further comprising a coupling to be coupled to a guide and/or a drive (FIG. 2, [0019] of Bibeau, outer ends #134 of bars #60 #62 of clamping frame received in socket ends #130 #132 which is a guide), wherein the clamping frame may be a three-dimensional clamping frame and/or may include multiple clamping frame elements (Abstract, FIG. 2 of Bibeau, clamping frame #38 is made up of a plurality of elements and can be conformed to a curved or 3D die surface), 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 (Abstract, FIG. 2 of Bibeau, clamping frame #38 is made up of a plurality of elements and can be conformed to a curved or 3D die surface; joints in frame are therefore capable of at least rotational movement), wherein the clamping frame is a three-dimensional clamping frame (Abstract, FIG. 2 of Bibeau, clamping frame #38 can be conformed to a curved or 3D die surface and is therefore a 3D clamping frame).
Bibeau does not specifically disclose the clamping frame for being used in the vacuum form tooling according to claim 1. Moreover, Bibeau discloses using the clamping frame to clamp a vinyl sheet vacuum forming in a mold (Abstract, [0003], [0014], FIG. 2 of Bibeau) but does not disclose the specific tooling of claim 1. The clamping unit of Bibeau, however, is capable of being moved 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 ([0014] of Bibeau). The clamping unit of Bibeau is therefore capable of being used in the vacuum form tooling according to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 15, the closest prior art is to Shuert. 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). Neither Shuert, however, nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest a vacuum form tooling as recited in claims 1, 12 and 15 wherein the lower mold is a stationary mold. Moreover, in Shuert the lower mold is raised during vacuum forming (4:54-57 of Shuert). The prior art as a whole therefore fails to teach or reasonably suggest the totality of the invention as defined by claims 1, 12 and 15. In the absence of further prior art guidance, it would not have been obvious to arrive at the invention of these claims without impermissible hindsight. For the foregoing reasons, the invention of claims 1, 12 and 15 is deemed non-obvious. Claims 3-10 and 18 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claims 13, 14 and 19 depend from claim 12. Claims 16 and 17 depend from claim 15. These dependent claims are therefore also deemed non-obvious for the reasons set forth above with respect to claims 1, 12 and 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered to the extent they apply to the new grounds of rejection but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Sotokawauchi does not teach or suggest a 3D-clamping frame (¶ spanning pp. 8-9 of the amendment). The Office Action, however, is relying upon the newly cited Bibeau reference to address this limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights