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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is suggested to amend the limitation “the lower die located on an inner side” to read as “the lower die is located on an inner side”. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“liquid supply portion for depositing” in claim 2 [corresponding structure is jetting nozzles; see paragraph 0063];
“biasing member configured to press” in claim 19 [corresponding structure is compression coil type spring; see paragraph 0173 & 0182].
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.
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 § 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 1-20 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.
With regards to claim 1, the claim states “a hot press device configured such that…”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear what the transitional phrase is for the claim. A transitional phrase defines the scope of the claim in terms of what unrecited elements or method step, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim, as well as clearly separating the preamble from the body of the claim. Accordingly, the lack of a transitional phrase renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the claim is not clearly defined [see MPEP 2111.03]. It is further noted that the “wherein” phrase appears to server the same purpose as the transitional phrase to further limit the structure of the apparatus, however wherein clauses are used to further define elements that have been positively recited previously within the claim, thus the wherein clause cannot be considered to be the transitional phrase of the claim. For purposes of examination the claim is being interpreted as having “comprising” as the transitional phrase.
The claim states “press device configured such that a primary formed product that is obtained in a forming area”, it is unclear what structural element the forming area is associated with, the press device or the primary formed product.
The claim states “press device configured such that primary formed product…is held under pressure and cooled on respective pressure holding surfaces of an upper die and a lower die in a cooling die set to thereby obtain a hardened final formed product”, it is unclear if the upper die and lower die in a cooling die set is intended as structure of the hot press device or if this is a separate structural die set. It is noted that given that the claim lacks a transitional phrase this limitation appears as part of the preamble of the claim and therefore the claim fails to positively recite any structure to the hot press device. For examination purposes the claim is being interpreted as a hot press device comprising a cooling die set including an upper die and a lower die, wherein the lower die includes a liquid reservoir for retaining liquid coolant.
With regards to claim 3, the claim states “the liquid supply portion includes a jetting nozzle disposed in the first liquid reservoir”, this renders the claim indefinite since claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, sets forth “at least one of the upper die and the lower die includes a liquid supply portion”, the “at least one” option of claim 2 allows for the options of the upper die, the lower die or both the upper and lower die therefore it is unclear how it is possible for the liquid supply portion to be disposed in the first liquid reservoir if the liquid supply portion is included in the upper die and the liquid reservoir is in the lower die. Clarification and/or correction is required. For examination purposes the claim is being interpreted as reciting the liquid supply portion is within the lower die.
With regards to claim 4, the claim states “the liquid supply portion is capable of supplying the liquid cooling to the cooling recess”, this renders the claim indefinite since claim 2, from which claim 4 depends, sets forth “at least one of the upper die and the lower die includes a liquid supply portion”, the “at least one” option of claim 2 allows for the options of the upper die, the lower die or both the upper and lower die therefore it is unclear how it is possible for the liquid supply portion to supply liquid to the cooling recess which is in the upper die if the liquid supply portion is included in the lower die. Clarification and/or correction is required. For examination purposes the claim is being interpreted as reciting the liquid supply portion is within the upper die.
With regards to claim 8, the claim states “wherein a second liquid reservoir is provided in an outer region of the first liquid reservoir of the lower die as the liquid reservoir”, it is unclear how the second liquid reservoir is now to be the liquid reservoir when claim 2 has previously recited that the first liquid reservoir is the liquid reservoir. Specifically, is the claim intending to recite that the first and the second reservoirs are to be single reservoir? Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claim 12, the claim states “a recess that is open upward is provided in the pressure-holding surface of the lower die as the liquid reservoir”, this renders the claim indefinite since claim 9, from which claim 12 depends, previously recites the third liquid reservoir is the liquid reservoir, therefore it is unclear if the limitation is intending to recite both the third liquid reservoir and the recess are to be the liquid reservoir or if the recess alone is the liquid reservoir. Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claim 14, the claim states “the lower die includes a lower recess as the liquid reservoir” and also states “a first reservoir chamber is provided in the first cylinder chamber as the liquid reservoir”, it is unclear how the lower recess and the first reservoir chamber are both to be a liquid reservoir when they are two separate structural elements. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Irie et al (US 2021/0078063).
In reference to claim 1, Irie et al discloses a hot press device configured such that a primary formed product that is obtained in a forming area and is in a high temperature state is held under pressure and cooled on respective pressure holding surfaces (15, 16) of an upper die (11) and a lower die (12) in a cooling die set to thereby obtain a hardened final formed product, wherein the lower die (12) includes a liquid reservoir for retaining liquid coolant (cavity within 16b) [see figures 1 & 3; paragraph 0044].
In reference to claim 2, the lower die (12) includes a liquid supply portion (18) for depositing the liquid coolant on the primary formed product held under pressure, and a first liquid reservoir (16b) is provided in the lower die as the liquid reservoir, the first liquid reservoir configured to collect and retain the liquid coolant deposited from the liquid supply portion (18) on the primary formed product [see paragraph 0044].
In reference to claim 4, Irie et al further discloses the upper die (11) includes a cooling recess (cavity within 15b) that is open at the press holding surface (15) of the upper die for the primary formed product, and a liquid supply portion (17) is capable of supplying the liquid coolant to the cooling recess.
In reference to claim 5, the cooling recess (15b) is provided at a location corresponding to the pressure holding surface of the lower die [see figure 3], and the first liquid reservoir (16b) is provided at a location corresponding to the pressure holding surface of the upper die [see figure 3].
In reference to claim 6, Irie et al further discloses a plurality of upper cooling grooves (15b) are formed in the pressure holding surface of the upper die, the upper cooling grooves each having an end portion that is open to the cooling recess, as seen in figure 2.
In reference to claim 7, Irie et al further discloses a plurality of lower cooling grooves (16b) are formed in the press holding surface of the lower die, the lower cooling grooves each having an end portion that is open to the first liquid reservoir, as seen in figure 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie et al.
In reference to claim 3, Irie et al further discloses the first liquid reservoir includes a cooling opening (opening at passage 18) that is open at the press holding surface of the lower die for the primary formed product [see figure 3].
Irie et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a jetting nozzle is provided for spraying the cooling onto the primary formed product.
However, it is well known in the art to provide jetting nozzles for the purpose of providing spray control of the liquid being applied to the product.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid supply portion of Irie et al to include jetting nozzles within the reservoir at the cooling openings in order to improve control of the application of the cooling being applied onto the product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art neither alone nor in combination, anticipates nor renders obvious a second liquid reservoir surrounding the first liquid reservoir and configured to retain the liquid coolant as it flows from the first liquid reservoir through the cooling grooves and into the second liquid reservoir as required by claim 8, a volume varying wall of a third liquid reservoir that is configured to move in a horizontal direction to vary a retaining volume of the third liquid reservoir as required by claim 9, and the structural element as required by claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm EST.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (571) 270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725