DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on Nov. 3, 2023 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The Examiner notes, there is a typographical error in the restriction. Claim 18 should have been grouped with Group I, claims 1-16. Accordingly, Claims 1-16 and Claim 18 will be examined.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner interprets lines 1-2 as the preamble of the claim, and interprets the body of the claim begins in lines 3-7. The Examiner is broadly interpreting the term “hot pressing” as pressing at a temperature greater than room temperature.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
For the heating apparatus in claim 3, the Examiner is applying the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In claim 9, Applicant claims “the separating element”. Therefore, the Examiner interprets there is only one separating element in claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang et al. (CN111527048A – hereinafter Wang).
For the Wang reference, the Examiner is referencing sections of the EPO Machine Translation.
Regarding claim 1, Wang (Fig. 1 and [0035]) discloses a stone manufacturing mold (corresponding to a multiple mold) comprising a frame formed by a side template 2 symmetrically installed on 2 sides and a second side template symmetrically installed on the other two sides that define a receiving volume. Wang discloses at least one separating element (“first isolation mechanism 4” and/or “second isolation element 5”) disposed within the receiving volume and divides the receiving volume into 4 sub volumes, which provides for the claimed at least two subvolumes.
The Examiner interprets “for production of at least two glass-ceramic blanks for dental purposes from at least two powder blanks by hot pressing” in the preamble of the claim, and the phrase after “a receiving volume (50)”, specifically “for the at least two powder blanks”, and the phrase after “subvolumes (54),”, specifically “each of which is designed to accommodate one of the at least two powder blanks (32)”, as intended use of the apparatus. Accordingly, Wang provides for the claimed structure of the multiple mold. Alternatively, if it is interpreted the intended use provides for additional claim limitations, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the mold including a compression component disclosed by Wang has a receiving volume capable of receiving and designed to accommodate at least two powder blanks, and it would be obvious the mold could be sized for glass-ceramic blanks for dental purposes.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Wang (Fig. 1 and [0035]) discloses a support plate (“lower template 1”) with a support surface. The Examiner interprets the phrase “to directly or indirectly bear the at least two powder blanks (32)”, as intended use. Accordingly, Wang provides for the claimed structure of the multiple mold. Alternatively, if it is interpreted the intended use provides for additional claim limitations, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the mold disclosed by Wang having the support plate with a support surface to directly bear the at least two powder blanks, as claimed.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN111527048A – hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2021/0238416 – hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claim 3, Wang fails to disclose the multiple mold further comprising a heating apparatus for heating at least a section of the receiving volume (50). However, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Wang ([0004]) discloses solid artificial stone materials including artificial quartz stone, artificial granite, etc. and teaches different types of artificial stone have different compositions including main components of resin, aluminum powder, pigment, and curing agent. Additionally, Cho (abstract, [0102], and [0100]) teaches a curable composition for manufacturing artificial stone including resin components, and teaches the composition is introduced into a mold for artificial stone, and the molded material is heat-cured with a top and bottom hot-press oven in which the top and bottom plates are set at a temperature for curing. Both Wang and Cho teach artificial stone including resin components and teach a mold for artificial stone. Accordingly, with the additional teachings the molded material for an artificial stone is heat-cured in an oven, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in art, the multiple mold further comprising a heating apparatus for heating the molded material within the receiving volume. Since a heating apparatus heats the molded material within the heating volume, this provides for the multiple mold further comprising a heating apparatus for heating at least a section of the receiving volume, as claimed.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN111527048A – hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2021/0238416 – hereinafter Cho) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Palladino (US 2019/0338533) and Koyanagi et al. (US 6,316,548 – hereinafter Koyanagi).
Regarding claim 4, as discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above, Wang in view of Cho provides for the multiple mold further comprising a heating apparatus for heating at least a section of the receiving volume. As discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above, Wang teaches heating with a top and bottom oven including top and bottom plates at a set temperature for curing. Accordingly, Wang in view of Cho provides for heating the top and bottom sections (corresponding to heating of two different sections of the receiving volume).
Wang in view of Cho fails to disclose the heating apparatus comprises at least two separate heating segments for independent heating of two different sections of the receiving volume. However, Palladino teaches curing by heating and heat may be applied by inserting the mold in an oven, or may be applied to the bottom of the mold (with a heating element, heating lamp, heated air, and so forth), or to the top of the mold (with a heating element, heating lamp, heated air, and so forth), and/or of the mold itself. Additionally, Koyanagi (Col. 18, lines 55-58) teaches it is known in the prior art of curing with heating and upper mold and lower mold may be heated at different temperatures. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Palladino and Koyanagi, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the apparatus of Wang in view of Cho comprising at least two separate heating elements for heating a top and bottom of the mold and for independent heating of two different sections of the receiving volume, such as the top and bottom, to provide for different temperatures, since it is known in the prior art.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ang et al. (CN111527048A – hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2021/0238416 – hereinafter Cho) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Palladino (US 2019/0338533) and Sakai (US 6,221,300).
Regarding claims 5-6, as discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above, Wang in view of Cho provides for the multiple mold further comprising a heating apparatus for heating at least a section of the receiving volume. As discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above, Wang teaches heating with a top and bottom oven including top and bottom plates at a set temperature for curing. Accordingly, Wang in view of Cho provides for heating the top and bottom sections (corresponding to heating of two different sections of the receiving volume).
Wang in view of Cho fails to disclose the heating apparatus comprises at least one induction heating element, as claimed in claim 5 or at least one electrical resistance heating element, as claimed in claim 6. However, Palladino teaches curing by heating and heat may be applied by inserting the mold in an oven, or may be applied to the bottom of the mold (with a heating element, heating lamp, heated air, and so forth), or to the top of the mold (with a heating element, heating lamp, heated air, and so forth), and/or of the mold itself. Additionally, Sakai teaches heating means such as electric heating includes resistance heating or induction heating. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Palladino and Saki, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the apparatus of Wang in view of Cho comprising heating elements, such as electric heating means, such as at least one induction heating element, as claimed in claim 5, or at least one electrical resistance heating element, as claimed in claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Cho in view of Palladino and Sakai fail to disclose the at least two resistance heating elements have different electrical resistance. However, it would be obvious to try different types of heating including, the combination of the at least two resistance heating elements having the same or having different electrical resistances.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN111527048A – hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN108247553A – hereinafter CN’553).
For the CN’533 reference, the Examiner is referencing sections of the EPO machine translation.
Regarding claim 9, Wang fails to disclose details of the mold material, such as the separating element comprises a graphite material or has been produced from a graphite material. However, Wang ([0002] discloses the mold is for manufacturing an artificial stone and CN’553 ([0006] and [0018]) teaches a method of preparing an artificial stone with a graphite mold. Both Wang and CN’553 reference molding an artificial stone. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, since graphite is taught as an acceptable mold material, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the mold of Wang, the separating element as comprising a graphite material or produced from a graphite material, as claimed.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN111527048A – hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moreno et al. (US2012/0183735A1 – hereinafter Moreno).
Regarding claim 18, Wang fails to disclose a compression apparatus having a reduced-pressure chamber, wherein the multiple mold of claim 1 is disposed in the reduced pressure-chamber of the compression apparatus. However, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Wang ([0004]) discloses solid artificial stone materials including artificial quartz stone, artificial granite, etc. and teaches different types of artificial stone have different compositions including main components of resin, aluminum powder, pigment, and curing agent. Additionally, Moreno ([0011]) teaches manufacturing artificial stone including resin and ([0038]) teaches the artificial stone material (i.e. molding mass) introduced into a mold, and subjecting the mold to vibrocompression in a vacuum chamber in order to extract occluded air in the molding mass. Both Wang and Moreno teach artificial stone including resin components and teach a mold for artificial stone. Accordingly, with the additional teachings the molded material for an artificial stone is subjected to a vacuum chamber in order to extract occluded air in the molding mass, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the mold of Wang disposed in a reduced-pressure chamber of a compression apparatus to provide for the ability to removed occluded air in a molding mass in a mold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10-16 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter is discussed below.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the multiple mold of claim 6 wherein the separating element is formed at least in sections as a resistance heating element.
Regarding claims 10-11, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a clamp apparatus for clamping the separating element and the at least two powder blanks within the receiving volume is provided on the frame. The separating elements (4,5) of Wang are held by grooves within the frame (first and second side templates 2,3).
Regarding claims 12-13, Wang discloses the separating element 4,5 formed by two isolation plates 41. The prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a compensation plate provided within the receiving volume and adjoining at least one of the powder blanks and/or adjoining the separation element.
Regarding claims 14-16, Wang discloses the separating elements 4,5 intersect, and provide for subvolumes adjacent each other. Accordingly, Wang fails to disclose the two or more separating elements and subvolumes are arranged alternately in a first direction (R1) that extends from a first end face (48a) of the frame (48) to a second end face (48b) of the frame (48), wherein the first end face (48a) and the second end face (48b) are opposite one another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741