DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 11/07/2023.
Claim(s) 1-28 have been considered.
- Claim(s) 1-28 are pending.
- Claim(s) 14-23 have been withdrawn based on a verbal election for restriction (with traverse) given by examiner (see below for further details).
- Claim(s) 1-13, and 24-28 have been rejected as described below.
- This action is NON-FINAL.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner acknowledges the entry of following Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) document(s) from applicant:
The information disclosure statement(s) filed 11/07/2023 has/have been considered by examiner.
Note, both IDSs refer to the same references.
Reference(s) mentioned in the IDS has/have been utilized by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) from application no JP2022-182673 filed 11/15/2022 and also from application no JP2022-182674 filed 11/15/2022. The certified copies have been filed in instant application no 18/503,522 on 12/08/2023.
Specification
The disclosure filed 11/07/2023 is objected to due to having below minor informalities:
The title of the disclosure is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings filed 11/07/2023 are acknowledged and accepted by examiner for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Group I - Claims 1-13, 24-28 – This set's claimed inventive subject matter focuses on determining if a 3D space will be undercut. The invention requires a different field of search, e.g., employing different search strategies or search queries by searching different classes/subclasses – more specifically, the relevant classification code(s) here is/are G05B2219/35044 (tool, design of tool, mold, die tooling).
II. Group II – Claim(s) 14-23 – This set's claimed inventive subject matter focuses on designing a single slide mold for an undercut area. The invention requires a different field of search, e.g., employing different search strategies or search queries by searching different classes/subclasses – more specifically, the relevant classification code(s) here is/are B29C33/3835 (Designing moulds, e.g., using CAD-CAM). None of the aspects or details of designing a single slide mold for an undercut area are part of the concepts for claims in group I.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of Groups I, and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, Group I could be used to identify an undercut portion and Group II could be used to design a single slide mold for the identified section. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
- the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
- the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
- the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
These abovementioned differences in the details of the claimed inventive subject matter in the 2 groups of claims are making them distinct inventions from each other, creating a search and examination burden. Group II, for example, has different concept(s) necessary for a search strategy such as details regarding designing a single slide mold for an undercut area. Group I on the other hand, has concept(s) such as details regarding determining if a 3D space will be undercut.
During a telephonic voicemail sent to examiner (in response to examiner’s inquiry earlier) by attorney of record, Daniel Glueck on May 22, 2026, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-13, 24-28. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-23 (Group II) are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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(s) 1-13, and 24-28 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term “a processing of” in Line 3 and line 6 is considered to have made both the first and second limitations directed to receiving and extracting data respectively unclear as to whether it is pointing to a processor from the system performing the method or just a step of receiving/extracting data, for example.
To promote compact prosecution, this limitation is being interpreted as to read below by omitting the term “a processing of”:
“…
and
Claims 2-13 and 24-28 are rejected based on dependency from claim 1. Aside from that, note, dependent claims 2-6, and 9-10 (in each of their 1st limitation with an exception of claim 6 that has it in its 2nd limitation) recite this term explicitly as well and so amendment to correct those limitations similarly will also be necessary.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim(s) 24 recite(s), "A computer-readable storage medium storing a program of executing the information processing method according to claim 1 by an information processing unit.". Thus, the claim(s) is/are believed to be directed to non-statutory subject matter as it/they does/do not exclude “transitory” medium. A review of applicant’s specification has been performed and that has not revealed any specific definition of the “computer-readable medium” used in the claim language towards indicating an exclusion of transitory medium. For example, while applicant specification 0250 describes “… a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a 'non-transitory computer-readable storage medium') …”, emphasis added, it does not definitively describe the computer-readable media to exclude transitory form of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), which is described to be part of non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories in MPEP 2106.03(I).
The Examiner suggests the following language to overcome the rejection: " A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program of executing the information processing method according to claim 1 by an information processing unit.".
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-13, and 24-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action (also note the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection for claim 24) as the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination.
Regarding claim 1, aside from the cited pertinent arts below (IWASHITA (US 20210315324 A1), GLASER (US 20220288830 A1), Moein (US 20060053577 A1), and Dussol (US 20180027822 A1) – see the description of relevancy below in the “Pertinent Art(s)” section), the closest prior art that has been found and thoroughly reviewed is Numauchi (US 20110071790 A1).
Numauchi teaches receiving data including a molded product area indicating a 3D shape of the molded product (See the 3d shape of the modeled product as illustrated in figure 8 and as described in paragraphs 0062, 0127). However, it doesn’t teach or suggest the features and details of receiving data for the non-molded product area and then the extract the undercut as claimed. More specifically, the non-molded product area has been further defined in the claim as to be “indicating a three-dimensional shape of a non-molded product space enclosing ‘the’ molded product”, ‘emphasis’ added. While there are a few shapes inside that M8 space in Fig. 11A of Numauchi, there is no explicit description of M8 enclosing ‘the’ molded products described in 0062, 0127, etc., which are relevant for receipt of data for moldable products. Not only the receipt of specifically defined data and then the extraction of specific data from that received data (as the claim requires) are missing in this reference (as the moldable and unmoldable “portion” detection is described but nothing further as to how the extraction takes place from an area data that indicates a 3D shape of a non-molded product space enclosing the molded product), but also the reference doesn’t go into the detail of claimed “a three-dimensional space that becomes an undercut portion in a state where a first mold and a second mold forming the molded product are opened”. For example, this art’s 0080-0082 discusses some of these concepts related to undercuts, but the examples do not cover exactly what is needed for the details in the extraction limitation.
Accordingly, the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination:
1. An information processing method of designing a mold for molding a molded product, the method comprising:
receiving data including a molded product area indicating a three-dimensional shape of the molded product, and a non-molded product area indicating a three-dimensional shape of a non-molded product space enclosing the molded product;
and extracting, from the non-molded product area, a three-dimensional space that becomes an undercut portion in a state where a first mold and a second mold forming the molded product are opened.
Note, claim(s) 2-13 and 24-28 depend(s) from claim 1.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009,158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Pertinent Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
IWASHITA et al. (US 20210315324 A1) is related to a shoe manufacturing system and a method of controlling the shoe manufacturing system. It discusses a shoe manufacturing system for processing a to-be-bonded surface of a first shoe part before bonding a second shoe part to the first shoe part includes: a holder that holds the first shoe part; an imager that acquires three-dimensional shape data of the first shoe part held by the holder; a processing unit that processes the to-be-bonded surface; a moving mechanism that moves the processing unit; and a controller that controls the moving mechanism based on the three-dimensional shape data acquired by the imager, and controls the processing unit that processes the to-be-bonded surface. The controller identifies a boundary of the to-be-bonded surface of the first shoe part that is to serve as a master model among a plurality of the first shoe parts, for defining an area of the to-be-bonded surface to be processed, based on the three-dimensional shape data of the master model acquired by the imager, and the controller controls the moving mechanism for each of the first shoe parts other than the master model, to enable the processing unit to process the area of the to-be-bonded surface enclosed by the identified boundary.
GLASER et al. (US 20220288830 A1) is related to a computer-implemented method and a design system for designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. The computer-implemented method includes a) retrieving three-dimensional geometrical data describing a candidate shape of a mold cavity; b) analyzing the geometrical data; c) automatically interpreting at least one analysis result generated in step b) by subjecting the analysis result to at least one target specification; and d) outputting at least one interpretation result generated in step c), the interpretation result describing at least one quality of one or both of the molding process and a part design using the candidate shape of the mold cavity.
Moein et al. (US 20060053577 A1) is related to a windshield wiper assembly including at least one motor having an output shaft and a windshield wiper operatively connected to the output shaft. The motor includes a stator adapted to provide an electromagnetic flux and a rotor assembly supported for rotation about the stator. The rotor assembly includes a back iron that defines an inner circumference and a plurality of magnets disposed in spaced parallel relationship relative to one another about the inner circumference of the back iron and in radially spaced relationship about the stator. The rotor assembly is operatively connected to the output shaft and responsive to electromagnetic flux generated by the stator so as to provide a rotational force to the output shaft to drive the windshield wiper in repeated wiping motion across the windshield.
Dussol et al. (US 20180027822 A1) is related to a method for the production of a soft cake having at least a molded face and at least a non-molded face, the molded face having at least one molded three-dimensional pattern, the method comprising the steps of: a) pouring a cake batter suitable for forming a soft cake into a pan, wherein the cake batter has a viscosity of between 500 and 1 Pa.Math.s; b) baking said soft cake batter in said pan to form a soft cake; and c) removing the soft cake from the pan, wherein the pan has a molded inner surface for receiving the cake batter and which provides the three dimensional molding pattern of the soft cake, and wherein the molded inner surface of the pan has an arithmetical mean degree of roughness (Ra) of from 0.12 μm to 0.22 μm, wherein the molded three-dimensional pattern of the soft cake is complementary to the molded inner surface of the pan and has a molded groove which is in recess relative to said molded face and/or a molded ridge which protrudes relative to said molded face, said molded groove and/or molded ridge having a minimum width of less than 4 mm measured across the groove or ridge at the maximum depth or height respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARZIA T MONTY whose telephone number is (571)272-5441. The examiner can normally be reached on M, W-F: 11am -5pm (approximately). 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5441.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARZIA T MONTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights