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 1 is amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argument pertaining to Arai and YEH fail to disclose "individual plastics particles of the particle foam material are conveyed into the mold cavity at a greater compression and/or slower speed”, that this processing has no relation to extrusion or injection molding, as there is no melt which then solidifies in the cavity of a molding tool. YEH discloses a molding device suitable for use in injection molding or extrusion molding. However, the disclosure of YEH does not relate to the processing of expandable plastics particles to form a particle foam component. Therefore, YEH does not belong in the same technological field of endeavor, this is not persuasive as YEH discloses forming foamed polymer articles and teachings about temperature, pressure, and pore size would still be relevant. However, as the present application has been addressed by Arai (US 4,818,451) and Kuwabara (US 5,284,431).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Arai (US 4818451) in view of Kuwabara (US 5284431).
Regarding Claim 1 Arai discloses method for filling a mold cavity of a mold for producing a particle foam molding using a particulate particle foam material (abstract), the method comprising: providing particle foam material, to be processed in a mold cavity of a mold for producing a particle foam molding (Figure 1, cavity-21), via at least one filling container device, wherein there is a first pressure level in the filling container device (Figure 1, filling container/blow filling gun-15, first pressure-P2); providing a mold cavity which is to be filled with the particulate particle foam material that is to be processed for producing the a particle foam molding, wherein there is a second pressure level in the mold cavity; filling the mold cavity with the particulate particle foam material from the filling container device in a filling process (Figure 1, second pressure-P1), wherein during the filling of the mold cavity with the particulate particle foam material a difference between the first pressure level and the second pressure level is purposefully varied by at least one measure for varying the difference between the first pressure level and the second pressure level (Col 8 line 58-65).
Arai fail to teach that individual plastics particles of the particle foam material are conveyed into the mold cavity at greater compression and/or slower speed, during the filling process. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art Kuwabara discloses that foamed particles are conveyed by compressed air into the cavity (Col 1 line 29-33, Col 3 line 64-69).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Arai’s system with that of Kuwabara’s teaching of foamed particles are conveyed by compressed air into the cavity for the purpose of fill the cavity as densely as possible.
Regarding Claim 2 Arai discloses wherein the at least one measure for varying the difference between the first pressure level and the second pressure level during the filling of the mold cavity includes setting a defined difference (Col 8 line 58-65), which can be changed, in particular in a time-dependent manner, between the first pressure level and the second pressure level (Col 8 line 61-68, Col 9 line 1-2).
Regarding Claim 4 Arai discloses wherein the at least one measure for varying the difference between the first pressure level and the second pressure level during the filling of the mold cavity includes setting a defined difference, which is unchangeable, in particular in a time-dependent manner, between the first pressure level and the second pressure level (Col 8 line 61-68, Col 9 line 1-6).
Regarding Claim 5 Arai discloses wherein the at least one measure for varying the difference between the first pressure level and the second pressure level during the filling of the mold cavity includes firstly setting a defined difference, which can be changed in a time-dependent manner, between the first pressure level and the second pressure level, over a first time interval after the start of the filling (Col 8 line 58-65), and, after the first time interval has elapsed, setting a defined difference, which is unchangeable, in particular in a time-dependent manner, between the first pressure level and the second pressure level (Col 8 line 65-68, Col 9 line 1-6).
Regarding Claim 6 Arai discloses the at least one measure for varying the difference between the first pressure level and the second pressure level is carried out by controlling or regulating the operation of at least one controllable or regulatable pressure-influencing device, in particular in the form of a valve device, which is assigned to the mold cavity (Claim 1, Col 3 line 21-25).
Regarding Claim 7, Arai discloses the control or regulation of the operation of the controllable or regulatable pressure-influencing device which is assigned to the mold cavity and/or to the filling container device is carried out on the basis of detection data that describe the pressure level within the mold cavity (Figure 1, pressure influencing device/pressure sensitive switch, Col 3 line 12-20, line 32-37).
Regarding claim 11, Arai discloses wherein the control or regulation of the operation of the controllable or regulatable pressure-influencing device assigned to the mold cavity and/or the filling container device is carried out on the basis of detection data that describe the pressure level within the mold cavity and/or the filling container device (Col 2 line 31-38).
Claim(s) 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 4818451) and Kuwabara (US 5284431) as applied in Claim 2, in view of Lee, (US 20220097266).
Regarding Claims 3 and 16 Arai discloses wherein the setting of a defined difference, which can be changed, in particular in a time-dependent manner, between the first pressure level and the second pressure level includes a gradual continuous, manner, reduction of the second pressure level from a starting value before the start of the filling of the mold cavity to a defined end value after a defined time interval has elapsed after the start of the filling of the mold cavity (Col 8 line 61-68, Col 9 line 1-2). It didn’t disclose that time-dependent manner, between the first pressure level and the second pressure level in ramp like manner. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Lee discloses a control system to control the gas injected and the pressure in the mold cavity. Therefore, Arai’s system of the time-dependent manner pressure difference, between the first pressure level and the second pressure level includes a gradual continuous and control system taught by Lee could be combined to change the pressure difference in ramp like manner.
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Arai’s system with that of Lee’s control system to maintain the pressure difference for the purpose of injecting sufficient amount of foamed resin particles into the mold cavity.
Claim(s) 8-10, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 4818451) and Kuwabara (US 5284431) as applied in Claim 1 in view of Yeh (US 20210069949)
Regarding Claim 8 Arai/Kuwabara discloses the setting of a defined difference, which can be changed, in particular in a time-dependent manner, between the first pressure level and the second pressure level includes a gradual continuous, manner, reduction of the second pressure level from a starting value before the start of the filling of the mold cavity to a defined end value after a defined time interval has elapsed after the start of the filling of the mold cavity (Col 8 line 61-68, Col 9 line 1-2, Arai).
Arai/Kubawara didn’t disclose specifically that before filling the carrying out the at least one measure for varying the difference between the first pressure level and the second pressure level, at least one additional measure for matching the first pressure level and the second pressure level is carried out. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Yeh discloses that a pressure regulating system-20 in a molding device communicating with a mold cavity -13 (Figure 1, [0017]-[0018]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Arai’s system with that of Yeh’s teaching of pressure regulating system for the controlled operation during the start before filling the cavity
Regarding claim 9 Arai discloses the at least one measure includes increasing the second pressure level (Figure 1, pressure influencing device/pressure sensitive switch, Col 8 line 58-60).
Regarding claim 10 Arai/Yeh disclose wherein the at least one measure for matching the first pressure level and the second pressure level is carried out by controlling or regulating the operation of at least one controllable or regulatable pressure-influencing device, in particular in the form of a valve device, which is assigned to the mold cavity (Figure 1, [0017]-[0018], Yeh , pressure regulating device-20).
Regarding Claim 12 Arai discloses method for processing particle foam material to produce a particle foam molding (abstract), the method comprising: providing particulate particle foam material, to be processed in a mold cavity of a mold for producing a particle foam molding, via at least one filling container device, wherein there is a first pressure level in the filling container device (Figure 1, filling container/blow filling gun-15, first pressure-P2); providing a mold cavity which is to be filled with the particulate particle foam material that is to be processed for producing a particle foam molding, wherein there is a second pressure level in the mold cavity (Figure 1, second pressure-P1); filling the mold cavity with the particulate particle foam material from the filling container device in a filling device (Figure 1, cavity-21, Col 2 line 40-48), wherein during the filling of the mold cavity a difference between the first pressure level and the second pressure level is purposefully varied by at least one measure for varying the difference between the first pressure level and the second pressure level (Col 8 line 58-65); and carrying out at least one measure for connecting the particle foam material filled into the mold cavity, forming a particle foam molding that is to be produced (Col 1line 6-8, Col 9 line 58-62, Col 10 line 3-9 ). Arai didn’t particularly disclose that individual plastics particles of the particle foam material are conveyed into the mold cavity at greater compression and/or slower speed during the filling process, IN the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art Kuwabara discloses that foamed particles are conveyed by compressed air into the cavity (Col 1 line 29-33, Col 3 line 64-69 )
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Arai’s system with that of Kuwabara’s teaching of foamed particles are conveyed by compressed air into the cavity for the purpose of fill the cavity as densely as possible.
Further above combination didn’t disclose specifically that before filling the carrying out the at least one measure for varying the difference between the first pressure level and the second pressure level, at least one additional measure for matching the first pressure level and the second pressure level is carried out. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Yeh discloses that a pressure regulating system-20 in a molding device communicating with a mold cavity -13 (Figure 1, [0017]-[0018]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Arai’s system with that of Yeh’s teaching of pressure regulating system for the controlled operation during the start before filling the cavity
Regarding claim 17 Arai discloses wherein the pressure level is increased to the first pressure level (Col 8 line 58-60)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 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, 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/NAHIDA SULTANA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights