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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II. Claims 12-26, drawn to a metal injection molding system, classified in B29C45/1671, in the reply filed on 2 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-11 and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/KR2002/007892.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 16 January 2024. These drawings are accepted.
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 12-26 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 12 is directed to a injection molded system, comprising a product, a fixing means, and an enumerated step of cutting. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The step of cutting after the sintering process is completed would seem to be completely independent of the apparatus, which appears directed to prevention of shrinkage during a sintering of the product. In the instant case the “system” claim appears to invoke all of an apparatus, a product and a method at the same time. It is not clear from the claim what the invention is. The point of infringement of claim 12 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. Each of claims 13-26 depends from claim 12 and is also indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "so that the molded in a longitudinal direction of the molded side wall side wall is prevented from shrinking in the longitudinal direction thereof during the sintering process." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior to this a molded product and a molded side wall are invoked. It is not clear from the claim what “the molded” means.
The point of infringement of claim 12 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. Each of claims 13-26 depends from claim 12 and is also indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "so that the molded in a longitudinal direction of the molded side wall side wall is prevented from shrinking in the longitudinal direction thereof during the sintering process." It is not clear from the claim what is being limited. Specifically the claim states that the molded in the longitudinal direction is prevented from shrinking in the longitudinal direction thereof. It is not clear what is meant by “the longitudinal direction of” “the molded,” in a longitudinal direction. The point of infringement of claim 12 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. Each of claims 13-26 depends from claim 12 and is also indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "fixing means extending…. so that the molded in a longitudinal direction of the molded side wall side wall is prevented from shrinking in the longitudinal direction thereof during the sintering process." Claim 12 further recites the limitation “and a support means coupled to the fixing means to prevent the molded side wall from shrinking in the longitudinal direction thereof during the sintering process.” It is not clear what is being claimed. The prevention of shrinkage in the claim is attributed as a function of the fixing means, and then immediately the prevention of shrinkage is attributed instead to the support means being coupled to the fixing means. As written, the fixing means by themselves would need to perform the shrinkage prevention function, independently, and also the support means coupled thereto the fixing means needs to do the same function.
The point of infringement of claim 12 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. Each of claims 13-26 depends from claim 12 and is also indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the inner corner of the end corner." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The end corner is invoked originally in claim 13. No corner of the end corner is invoked before this. It is not clear whether claim 13 was intended to require that the end corner includes an inner corner, or whether claim 14 newly adds the inner corner to the end corner, or if this limitation refers to something else altogether.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " disposed along the inner surfaces of intermediate bending portions where the molded side walls intersect or along the inner surfaces of side wall intermediate corners where the fixing means intersect." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior to this only one molded side wall is invoked and now “the inner side walls” intersect. It is not clear whether one or more of the parent claims was intended to require that product includes multiple side walls that intersect, or whether claim 15 newly adds the limitation. Similarly, “the inner surfaces” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the corner inside support.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior to this, “one or more corner inside supports” are invoked. It is not clear whether this limitation limits the invention to include just one inside corner support, whether the limitation is applied to just one out of the one or more corner inside supports, or whether the reactive material should apply to the one or more corner inside supports as a whole, or something else altogether. The point of infringement of claim 16 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Each of claims 17, 19-21, and 23 similarly invokes “the corner inside support” or “corner inside supports,” and is also indefinite.
Each of claims 16, 17, 22, and 23 recites the limitation “the inside fixing support[s].” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior to this, “one or more inside fixing supports” are invoked. The point of infringement these claims cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Each of claims 16, and 17 recites the limitation “the inner surface.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior to this, “the inner surfaces” of intermediate bending portions or of side wall intermediate corners are invoked. The point of infringement these claims cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the unreactive material comprises any one of ceramic powder and graphite powder or a combination of two or more thereof.” It is not clear what is being claimed. Specifically, claim 18 invokes two discrete materials, yet “two or more thereof” is also recited. Was a third material included in “or more” combination that is not named? The inclusion of an unnamed third material would not be indefinite, by itself, but it is not clear if this is what is invoked by “or more,” or otherwise what is meant by such term. The point of infringement of claim 18 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 26 recites wherein a restrained gap between the support means and the metal injection molded product is in the range of 1.5 to 5.5%. It is not clear what is being claimed as there is no basis for a percentage. Is this a percentage of length? A percentage of volume? A percentage of number of parts or of the system as a whole? Is it a percentage of something else altogether? The point of infringement of claim 26 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: “paced apart” is an obvious typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/521,427 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because applicant’s copending claim 1 recites a system, including an injection molded product, and a support means. Applicant’s copending dependent claims further define one or more support means, for example in Claims 10, 11, 12, and 13. The practice of applicant’s copending dependent claims would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan. Applicant’s instant dependent claims are also considered obvious over the copending claims. For example the “corner supports” are considered to read on instant claim 13, and so on.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
NO claims are allowable. No rejection is made over the prior art at this time.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4886639 A teaches a sintering oven frame. US 20220299268 A1 teaches a sintering racking system including green work, support means and fixing means (figs 4 thru 7D).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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 S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights