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 Amendments
Applicant files a response and amended claim 1, 3, and 4 on 12/19/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments are primarily drawn to the air-impermeable plastic object of Wennberg is engaged with the catching device in a manner that would not be compatible with the permeable structural member of Piatkowski.
Upon further consideration, the rejection has been withdrawn and a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Casey.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “catching device” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on the disclosure, “catching device” is interpreted as a tool comprising a chucking chamber and openings [0033] and [0037] and its equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piatkowski (PG-PUB 2006/0278322) in view of Casey (EP0416957).
Regarding claim 1, Piatkowski teaches a process for forming a thermoplastic material for producing a finished article, the process comprising:
providing a mould comprising a first and a second half-mound, each one having a respective conformation surface (Figure 1 and [0024]-[0025]);
making a semi-finished product in said thermoplastic material, said semifinished
product being air permeable;
closing said mould with said semifinished product interposed between said
conformation surfaces for compressing said semifinished product between said
conformation surfaces [0027];
heating said first and second half-mould for heating said semi-finished
product [0023], [0027],
wherein, subsequently to said closing said mould and heating said first and
second half-mould, opening said mould (Figure 1 and [0025]).
Piatkowski does not teach:
with said semi-finished product coupled to said second half-mould,
contacting a free surface of said semi-finished product with a coupling surface of a
catching device;
generating an air flow which passes through said semi-finished product and through said coupling surface in a distributed way, said air flow being directed from said semi-finished product to said coupling surface, for constraining said semi-finished product to said catching device;
while keeping said air flow passing through semi-finished product and through said coupling surface in a distributed way, removing said semi-finished product from
said mould by movement of said catching device;
interrupting said air flow for releasing said semi-finished product from
said catching device and obtaining said finished article.
Casey teaches a molding apparatus comprising a first and second half-moulds (Figures 4 and 6) and a catching device for removing objects from the half-moulds and transporting the objects without deforming them (Figures 6 and 7), wherein the objects are molded porous (Col 1, ln 1-46). Casey teaches the catching device includes
comprises a lower portion 9 which substantially corresponds in shape to the interior of the mould tool 21 and thus to the part to be moulded (Col 3, ln 12-46).
Casey teaches when it is desired to remove the part from the mold the gripper device is fitted over the top part of the part 1 as described above, vacuum is applied to vacuum chambers 10, and simultaneously compressed air is fed, through apertures 12, to the interior of the mould, preferably at a location adjacent the joint between the part 1 and the upper surface of the lower mould tool 22, to assist in separating the part 1 from the tool (Col 4, ln 2-34 and Col 5, ln 5-21).
Casey teaches one or more vacuum inlet pipes 11 are fitted to the top surface of the moulding 8 and lead into the vacuum chamber(s) 10, and a plurality pipes are connected to apertures 12 around the lower peripheral edge of the moulding 8 and these pipes are connected to a central manifold to which is supplied compressed air (Figures 5-7 and Col 3, ln 12-45). Casey teaches the catching device includes vacuum inlet pipes (Figures 5 and 6), wherein a number of these pipes may be provided and further pipe branches may be added to each of the vacuum in lets to apply vacuum to areas within the vacuum chamber where vacuum force might otherwise be insufficient (Col 4, ln 2-34). Casey teaches a high volume low pressure fan is used as a vauum source to give a vacuum of 20 mbar at a flow rate of 1500 m3/hr for an object with 0.2 square meters (Col 4, ln 39-56).
Piatkowski and Casey are both drawn to compression molding. Piatkowski is silent to the particular technique used for removing the molded article, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Piatkowski with catching device of Casey, for the benefit or removing the manufactured article without deforming the object.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the said coupling surface of the catching device of Piatkowski in view of Casey such that said coupling surface of the catching device has a conformation corresponding to a conformation of said conformation surface of the first half-mould for the benefit of allowing the catching device to grasp and remove the object without substantially deforming the object, as taught by Casey. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Piakowski with the flow rate per surface extension unit of 7500 m3/hr*m2 as taught by Casey, a known suitable flow rate per surface extension unit for lifting a molded object.
Due to the permeable nature of the semi-finished product and the distributed vacuum inlet pipes of Piatkowski in view of Casey, air flow would naturally pass through the semi-finished product and through said coupling surface in a distributed way during the removal of the semi-finished product using the catching device.
Regarding claim 2, Piatkowski in view of Casey teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein said free surface of said semi-finished product comprises an upper surface of said semifinished product, and wherein said coupling surface of the catching device has a conformation corresponding to a conformation of said conformation surface of the first half-mould, such that the conformation surface of the first half-mould is identical to the coupling surface of the catching device (Wennberg, Figure 4, dotted line indicative of cavity surface in catching device 38 and first half-mould 32).
Regarding claim 3, Piatkowski teaches a process for forming a thermoplastic material for producing a finished article, the process comprising:
providing a mould comprising a first and a second half-mound, each one having a respective conformation surface (Figure 1 and [0024]-[0025]);
making a semi-finished product in said thermoplastic material, said semifinished
product being air permeable;
closing said mould with said semifinished product interposed between said
conformation surfaces for compressing said semifinished product between said
conformation surfaces [0027];
heating said first and second half-mould for heating said semi-finished
product [0023], [0027],
wherein, subsequently to said closing said mould and heating said first and
second half-mould, opening said mould (Figure 1 and [0025]).
Piatkowski does not teach:
with said semi-finished product coupled to said second half-mould,
contacting a free surface of said semi-finished product with a coupling surface of a
catching device;
generating an air flow which passes through said semi-finished product and through said coupling surface in a distributed way, said air flow being directed from said semi-finished product to said coupling surface, for constraining said semi-finished product to said catching device;
while keeping said air flow passing through semi-finished product and through said coupling surface in a distributed way, removing said semi-finished product from
said mould by movement of said catching device;
interrupting said air flow for releasing said semi-finished product from
said catching device and obtaining said finished article,
wherein said air flow has a flow rate per surface extension unit of said coupling surface greater than or equal to 1500 m3/h*m2 and/or less than or equal to 3000 m3/h*m2, wherein said generating said air flow starts only subsequently to said contacting said free surface of the semi-finished product with said coupling surface of the catching device, wherein said contacting comprises moving said catching device to a first position close to said second half-mould, and wherein said process comprises moving said catching device from said first position to a second position far from said second half-mould and close to a discharging surface.
Casey teaches a molding apparatus comprising a first and second half-moulds (Figures 4 and 6) and a catching device for removing objects from the half-moulds and transporting the objects without deforming them (Figures 6 and 7), wherein the objects are molded porous (Col 1, ln 1-46). Casey teaches the catching device includes
comprises a lower portion 9 which substantially corresponds in shape to the interior of the mould tool 21 and thus to the part to be moulded (Col 3, ln 12-46). Casey teaches when it is desired to remove the part from the mold the catching device is fitted over the top part of the part 1 as described above, vacuum is applied to vacuum chambers 10, and simultaneously compressed air is fed through apertures 12 to the interior of the mould, preferably at a location adjacent the joint between the part 1 and the upper surface of the lower mould tool 22, to assist in separating the part 1 from the tool; the vacuum is activated, and the catching device is naturally moved to a first position close to said second half-mold to a second position far from said second half-mold and close to a discharging surface (Col 4, ln 2-34 and Col 5, ln 5-21)
Casey teaches one or more vacuum inlet pipes 11 are fitted to the top surface of the moulding 8 and lead into the vacuum chamber(s) 10, and a plurality pipes are connected to apertures 12 around the lower peripheral edge of the moulding 8 and these pipes are connected to a central manifold to which is supplied compressed air (Figures 5-7 and Col 3, ln 12-45). Casey teaches the catching device includes vacuum inlet pipes (Figures 5 and 6), wherein a number of these pipes may be provided and further pipe branches may be added to each of the vacuum in lets to apply vacuum to areas within the vacuum chamber where vacuum force might otherwise be insufficient (Col 4, ln 2-34). Casey teaches a high volume low pressure fan is used as a vauum source to give a vacuum of 20 mbar at a flow rate of 1500 m3/hr for an object with 0.2 square meters (Col 4, ln 39-56), such that the flow rate per surface extension unit would be 7500 m3/hr*m2.
Piatkowski and Casey are both drawn to compression molding. Piatkowski is silent to the particular technique used for removing the molded article, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Piatkowski with catching device of Casey, for the benefit or removing the manufactured article without deforming the object.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the said coupling surface of the catching device of Piatkowski in view of Casey such that said coupling surface of the catching device has a conformation corresponding to a conformation of said conformation surface of the first half-mould for the benefit of allowing the catching device to grasp and remove the object without substantially deforming the object, as taught by Casey. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Piakowski with the flow rate per surface extension unit of 7500 m3/hr*m2 as taught by Casey, a known suitable flow rate per surface extension unit for lifting a molded object.
Due to the permeable nature of the semi-finished product and the distributed vacuum inlet pipes of Piatkowski in view of Casey, air flow would naturally pass through the semi-finished product and through said coupling surface in a distributed way during the removal of the semi-finished product using the catching device.
Regarding claim 6, Piatkowski in view of Casey teaches the process as applied to claim 1, comprising:
with said mold closed, admitting a heating fluid between said conformation surfaces, said semi-finished product being permeable to said heating fluid (Piatkowski, [0027]);
evacuating said heating fluid from said mold previously to said opening the mold (Piatkowski, [0029]-[0030]),
wherein the heating fluid is saturated steam (Piatkowski, [0027]) and would therefore be admitted at a temperature greater than or equal to 100°C,
wherein said heating said first and second half-mould is carried out before said closing said mould and at a temperature greater than or equal to 130°C and/or less than or equal to 250°C (Piatkowski, [0023], [0029], [0031]-[0033]).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piatkowski (PG-PUB 2006/0278322) in view of Casey (EP0416957), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Piana (US 11,186,063).
Regarding claim 7, Piatkowski in view of Casey teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein said product comprises a thermoplastic binder and fiber materials (Piatkowski, [0012]). Piatkowski discusses structural members comprising thermoplastic binders and a non-woven sheet [0003].
Piatkowski in view of Casey does not teach said thermoplastic material is selected in the group: polyester, polyurethane, polyethylene, polypropylene and polyamide, wherein said semi-finished product comprises a vertically-lapped non-woven fabric, and wherein said semi-finished product comprises a fibers sheet having a plurality of laps oriented so that each lap develops from the conformation surface of the first half-mould to the conformation surface of the second half-mould.
Piana teaches a nonwoven material, which is vertically lapped in its entirety or which includes one or more lapped regions which include vertically lapped fibers (Abstract). Piana teaches vertically lapped nonwovens are lighter in weight than conventional nonwovens and are very flexible and easier to mold than conventional nonwovens (Col 3, ln 25-40). Piana teaches vertically lapped nonwovens are light weight, porous and highly air permeable. Piana teaches the vertically-lapped material can be laminated or molded (Col 4, ln 42-64). Piana teaches the vertically lapped nonwoven comprises 10 to 50 wt. % bi-component elastomeric polyester binder fiber with melting point below 200° C (Col 4, ln 36-41). Piana teaches a single layer embodiment or a multilayered embodiment (Col 4, ln 30-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Piatkowski with the single-layered, vertically-lapped nonwoven fabric of Piana, a known suitable porous non-woven structural member suitable for molding as taught by Piana, to yield the predictable result of providing a steam-permeable structural member as desired by Piatkowski.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 and 5 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.
Regarding claim 4, Piatkowski in view of Casey teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Piatkowski in view of Casey does not teach:
while keeping said air flow, moving said semi-finished product from a respective first position in which said semi-finished product is coupled to said second half-mould at a respective second position in which said semi-finished product lies on a discharging surface;
generating a further air flow which passes through said discharging surface in a distributed way, said further air flow being directed from said semi-finished product to said discharging surface,
wherein said generating said further air flow starts at the same time of or subsequently to said interrupting said air flow, and wherein said further air flow has a flow rate per surface extension unit of said discharging surface greater than or equal to 1500 m3/h*m2 and/or less than or equal to 3000 m3/h*m2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745