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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For example, DE 3151775 equivalent to EP’913 discloses the very same medium that enters the mold cavity at two different locations.
The examiner maintains the rejection as prior art EP’913 discloses that the control device PC can switch the control valves and the throttle valves and the supply device is connected to the control device ([0049], [0050]). The prior art didn’t explicitly state that the first and second process flow simultaneously through the mold cavity, however EP’913 discloses that the valves are connected in series with the connection 15, 25 (Figure 3) which means connecting these valves in series suggests a possibility to control the rate of flow (via the throttle valves) while simultaneously directing that flow to specific paths. Hence, it would be obvious for one ordinary skilled to interpret that the control valve can switch the throttle valves-54 which can regulate fluid (liquid or gas) flow rates and pressures and can be controlled at the same time (Figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites “ the at least one flow parameter that influences the flow properties is the pressure of the process fluid flows “ which is not further limited, as claim 1 already recites controlling the pressure “wherein the first and the second process fluid flow simultaneously flow through the mold cavity, and wherein a first pressure of the first process fluid flow is different than a second pressure of the second process fluid flow” in line 12-14. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by DE 3151775 listed in IDS dated 10/20/2023 equivalent to EP 0082913,hereinafter EP’913, translation of EP’913 is attached.
Regarding Claim 1, EP’913 discloses method for processing particle foam material for producing a particle foam molding, the method comprising: - generating a first process fluid flow which flows through a mold cavity defined by two mold elements (Figure 2, molds- 22 and 12, mold walls-13,23 forming mold cavity-11, [0024], translated), wherein the first process fluid flow flows into the mold cavity via at least one opening of a first mold element (Figure 2, mold -22, valve-32 steam or other foaming medium has opening-25b, [0026], [0027], [0036], [0037]) and flows out of the mold cavity via at least one opening of a second mold element (Figure 2, mold-12, valve-31a, for disposal through the outlet-15a, [0014], Claim 18 ); and - generating a second process fluid flow, wherein the second process fluid flow flows into the second mold element via at least one opening of the second mold element and flows out of the second mold element via at least one opening of the second mold element ( Figure 2, second process fluid valve-31 in the mold element-12, flowing in the second mold-12, inlet 15,and outlet-15a, [0038], translated), wherein the first and the second process fluid flow differ in at least one flow parameter that influences the flow properties (Figure 3, throttle valve-54 which are connected to the inlet of the two molds allow the control pressure and flow rates parameters, [0039], [0047]). Further re: wherein the first and the second process fluid flow simultaneously flow through the mold cavity, and wherein a first pressure of the first process fluid flow is different than a second pressure of the second process fluid flow. EP’913 didn’t explicitly disclose that first and second process flow simultaneously through the mold cavity, however EP’913 discloses that the valves are connected in series with the connection 15, 25 (Figure 3) which means connecting these valves in series suggests a possibility to control the rate of flow (via the throttle valves) while simultaneously directing that flow to specific paths. Hence, it would be obvious for one ordinary skilled to interpret that the control valve can switch the throttle valves-54 which can regulate fluid (liquid or gas) flow rates and pressures and can be controlled at the same time (Figure 3, [0047], [0049], [0050], translated).
Regarding Claim 2 EP’913 discloses , wherein the at least one flow parameter that influences the flow properties is the pressure of the process fluid flows ( Figure 3, throttle valves-54 to control the flow of a fluid and the pressure within the system, [0039]).
Regarding Claim 3 EP’913 discloses that the at least one flow parameter that influences the flow properties is the pressure of the process fluid flows ( Figure 3, throttle valves-54 to control the flow of a fluid and the pressure within the system, [0039]) but didn’t disclose that the second process fluid flow has a lower pressure than the first process fluid flow, in particular lower at least by a factor of 2. However, the control valve-54 connected to the inlet of first and second fluid flow would be able to control the fluid pressure flow to a desired range as the pressure sensors 52, connected behind the throttle valves, each emitting a signal corresponding to the pressure level or at a given pressure level, which is fed to the process control device(Figure 3, [0047]).
Regarding Claim 4 EP’913 discloses, wherein the first and the second process fluid flow are provided by at least one process fluid provision device (Figure 3, fluid provision device-Vs, [0047]), wherein a process fluid provision device is used which is configured to selectively provide the first mold element with a process fluid for forming the first process fluid flow (Figure 2, valve -32 for the foaming medium has opening-25b, [0037]), and/or to provide the second mold element with a process fluid for forming the second process fluid flow (Figure 2, second fluid is surface hardening media through valve-31, [0039]).
Regarding Claim 5 EP’913 discloses, wherein a first mold element is used, which has a flow channel structure that is arranged of formed so as to extend between at least one inflow opening (Figure 2, first mold-12, flow channel-25b) and at least one outflow opening and through which a process fluid flow can flow or flows (Figure 2, outflow-15a), wherein the at least one inflow opening is assigned at least one first closure device (Figure 2, valve-32), and the at least one outflow opening is assigned at least one second closure device (Figure 2, valve-31a, claim 18), and a second mold element is used, which has a flow channel structure that is arranged of formed so as to extend between at least one inflow opening and at least one outflow opening and through which a process fluid flow can flow or flows (Figure 2, second process fluid through valve-31 in the mold element-12, flowing in the second mold-12, inlet 15,and outlet-15a), wherein the at least one inflow opening is assigned at least one first closure device (Figure 2, valve-31), and the at least one outflow opening is assigned at least one second closure device (Figure 2, valve-37a).
Regarding Claim 6 EP’913 discloses wherein at least one further closure device, in particular regulatable valve device, arranged downstream/in the direction of flow of the respective second closure devices, in particular valve devices, is used (Figure 2, supply valve-34 and valve -31a on the disposal side is arranged in the flow of the direction, [0043]).
Regarding Claim 7 EP’913 discloses, wherein a plurality of regulatable closure devices, in particular valve devices, arranged downstream of the respective second closure devices, in particular valve devices, is used, wherein the plurality of closure devices is arranged or formed so as to be connected in parallel (Figure 2, the supply valve devices and the disposals valve devices are connected parallel).
Regarding Claim 8, EP’913 discloses that wherein the operation of at least one further closure device is regulated, in order to regulate the pressure level within the first and/or second mold element (throttle valve-54, regulates pressure by creating a flow restriction that causes a pressure drop across the device).
Regarding Claim 9, EP’913 discloses wherein the operation of the at least one further closure device is regulated, in order to regulate the pressure level within the second closure device of the second mold element (pressure sensors-52 are connected with the throttle valves, [0047] , wherein the regulation of the pressure level within the second mold element takes place when the second closure device assigned to the first mold element is closed ([0038]).
Regarding Claim 10, EP’913 discloses , wherein steam, in particular superheated steam, is used as the process fluid forming the respective process fluid flow ([0026], [0039]) but didn’t specifically disclose that the first and the second process fluid flow simultaneously flow through the mold cavity, in particular for a time period between 0.2 s and 60 s. EP’913 discloses that the fluid supply connections are attached to both molding tool and can be supplied form both sides simultaneously ([0041]). The invention states that the device can control the individual fluid/media quantity [0014]; therefore it would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to interpret that the time period of the flow could be optimized based on the product properties ([0042]).
Further, Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. SEE MPEP 2144.5 II
Regarding claim 11 EP’913 discloses , wherein steam, in particular superheated steam, is used as the process fluid forming the respective process fluid flow ([0026], [0039]).
Regarding Claim 12 EP’913 discloses , wherein the mold elements are used alternately as the first mold element and as the second mold element, in particular for different evaporation processes of the mold cavity ([0039], [0040], evaporation is comparable to the steam boost/injection technique and the heating and cooling of the mold walls in the molds takes place independently) within which in each case a corresponding first and a corresponding second process fluid flow is produced ([0039]).
Further, Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. SEE MPEP 2144.5 II
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741