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 Interpretation
Claim 1 “opposite mold part” is interpreted as either one of the at least a first mold or the second mold as earlier defined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 uses the term “comprising” is used in multiple instances without a colon and the claim as written then fails to separate each limitation via a semicolon. Claim limitations must be separated by a semicolon and before the last limitation using the term “and” and ending with a period.
Claim 4 line 4 recites “the flange” and for consistency it should be written as --encircling flange--. 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.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7- 9, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are 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 2 recites the limitation "the side delimiting the casting cavity" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the mold part” in claim 2 line 1 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether applicant is referring to the first mold part or the second mold part.
Similarity the term “the assembled position” (claim 4), “the position bearing against the other mold part” (claim 7), “its facing outer edge” (claim 11), “the lower side” (claim 13), “the metal layer” (claim 18), “the part” (claim 18), and “the deforming intermediate layer” (claim 18), also lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "in particular the annular flange" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Furthermore, the term “the annular flange” lacks antecedent basis as earlier claim do not recite having an annular flange.
Claim 8 line 2 recites “the flange” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation, and it is unclear whether applicant is referring to the encircling flange or any other flange. Claim 8 is indefinite as it is unclear whether the element “the receiving rabbet” refers to the element “an encircling receiving rabbet” (claim 4) or “an annular rabbet” (claim 5) or a “receiving rabbet” (claim 5).
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "in particular of polypropylene" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 is indefinite as it is unclear what alternatives are expressed by the term “at least one or the metal layer”. Claim 18 is dependent upon claim 17 and is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above.
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(s) 1 – 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Butzek et al. (WO 2005/058574 A2; hereinafter “Butzek”).
Regarding claim 1, Butzek teaches a casting mold (1) for producing a casting (21) having a front side and a rear side from a curable casting compound (see claim 1), comprising
at least a first mold part (2) shaping the front side and a second mold part (3) shaping the rear side, said mold parts together delimiting a casting cavity (Fig 1-2, item 5), comprising a slide device (4), provided on one of the mold parts, comprising a slide portion which can be driven into the casting cavity and on which a detachable insert part (6) is or can be arranged, said insert part being able to be moved abutting against the opposite mold part (fig 1) and being able to be embedded into the curing casting compound, and being detached from the slide portion when the latter is moved back (see claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
765
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
643
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1 – 2 Butzek showing insert embedded in the resin material.
As for claim 2, Butzek further teaches slide device has, on the side delimiting the casting cavity, a recess in which the slide portion is received and out of which the slide portion is at least partially
Movable (Figs 1-2); and an ejector device comprising a compressed-air distributing device provided on the slide device (14,1 5; page 7 lines 17 to page 8 lines 12); and wherein the insert part is composed of plastic (see page 2, lines 11-30).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butzek et al. (WO 2005/058574 A2; hereinafter “Butzek”) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 4,889,480; hereinafter “Nakamura”).
Regarding claim 3 and 10-11, Butzek teaches all the limitation to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fails to explicitly teach wherein the slide portion has an encircling sealing element which provides sealing with respect to the wall of the recess; and wherein the recess has at the end facing the casting cavity, an encircling sealing edge which bears sealingly against the inserted insert part; wherein the insert part has a chamber at its facing outer edge in the position bearing against the other mold part.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches a casting mold for producing a casting having a front side and a rear side from a curable casting compound (see Figs. 1- 2; col 1 lines 50 to col 4 lines 40), comprising at least a first mold part shaping the front side and a second mold part shaping the rear side (Fig 1-2 shows top and bottom mold having cavity therebetween), said mold parts together delimiting a casting cavity, comprising a slide device (42, 7), provided on one of the mold parts (3), comprising a slide portion which can be driven into the casting cavity and on which a detachable insert part (4) is or can be arranged, said insert part being able to be moved abutting against the opposite mold part and being able to be embedded into the curing casting compound (see col 1 lines 50 to col 4 lines 40 which discloses insert is used to embed material to form undercut). Nakamura further shows wherein the slide portion has an encircling sealing element which provides sealing with respect to the wall of the recess (Fig 1 shows on item 41 including other portions such as 45 and underneath 41 there are considered sealing edge); and wherein the recess has at the end facing the casting cavity, an encircling sealing edge which bears sealingly against the inserted insert part; wherein the insert part has a chamber at its facing outer edge in the position bearing against the other mold part (Fig 1). It would have been within the level of one ordinary skill in the art to modify Butzek with having sealing element, as taught by Nakamura, for the benefit of preventing leaks during forming of casted object on the mold.
Claim(s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butzek et al. (WO 2005/058574 A2; hereinafter “Butzek”) in view of Schock & Co GMBH (WO 01/43936 A2; hereinafter “Schock”).
Regarding claims 15-17, Butzek teaches all the limitation to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fails to explicitly teach the first mold part has a first metal layer delimiting the casting cavity and the second mold part has a second metal layer delimiting the casting cavity; wherein the recess is formed in one of the two metal layers… as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to casting a molded part, Schock teaches process for the production of molded parts having a visible and a rear side from a hardenable reaction mass, wherein a casting mold from several casting mold parts is assembled into a configuration that is essentially unchangeable during a casting and curing step and forms a cavity in which the reaction mass is filled and cured, after which the mold is opened and the molded part is removed from the mold, in which at least one mold part has a deformable mold surface, and the cavity of the mold is filled with a predeterminable amount of hardenable reaction mass from a supply, and wherein the reaction mass is cured, while the volume of the cavity of the mold is reduced by deformation of the deformable mold surface, characterized in that a deformable mold surface is used, which is formed by a metal layer, and that in the deformation the deformable mold surface the metal layer is kept in contact with the reaction mass (see claim 1; Figs 1 -2 item 28 used for each mold halves); and further shows that the first mold part has a first metal layer delimiting the casting cavity and the second mold part has a second metal layer delimiting the casting cavity; wherein the recess is formed in one of the two metal layers (Figs 1-2 includes recesses for lifting off the casted material via pneumatic cylinder, 54 and 56).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was made to modify the casting mold as taught above with further including metal layers for the mold part, as taught by Schock, for the benefit of having desired deformation in the molding surface thereby compensating for shrinkage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-9 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 4, Butzek et al. (WO 2005/058574 A2; hereinafter “Butzek”) fails to teach wherein the insert part has a base plate and an encircling flange which peripherally adjoins said base plate, wherein, the in the assembled position, the base plate sits on a supporting portion of the slide portion and the flanges engages into an encircling receiving rabbet in the slide portion and it is at least partially received in the recess. Claims 6-9 are dependent upon claim 4, and are rejected similarly. Furthermore, as for claim 5, Butzek et al. (WO 2005/058574 A2; hereinafter “Butzek”) fails to teach wherein the recess and the slide portion are cylindrical, and in that the insert part has a round base plate and an annular flange which engages into an annular rabbet in the slide portion, or in that the recess and the slide portion have a cross-sectional shape which deviates from a circular shape, wherein the insert part has a base plate which is shaped correspondingly to this cross-sectional shape and a flange which engages into a receiving rabbet in the slide portion.
Regarding claims 18, Butzek et al. (WO 2005/058574 A2; hereinafter “Butzek”) or Nakamura et al. (US 4,889,480; hereinafter “Nakamura”) and/or Giza (US 5,147,657) in further view of Schock & Co GMBH (WO 01/43936 A2; hereinafter “Schock”) fail to teach wherein the at least one of the first or second mold part has an areal intermediate layer which is composed of an elastically deformable and compressible material and against which the metal layer of the mold part is movable with build-up of a restoring force on the part of the deforming intermediate layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5,862,853 - A movable insert for a die-casting mold having a cavity in which a core is mounted and slidable between a retracted position in the cavity and an extended position in which the core extends from the movable insert core. The core has a connector releasably connecting the core to a locator. The locator moves the core between the retracted and extended positions.
Giza (US 5,147,657) pertains to sliding pin for forming indentation on an object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743