Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 1/14/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 have been amended. Claim 16 is new. Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are pending.
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
The Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections claim 15.
In light of amendment and argument the Examiner withdraws VANDECRUYS alone for anticipation or as a primary reference. VANDERCRUYS alone appears to show that the 2D perforations on one side is the same distribution as the second side (one to one).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2,456,502A HALLIDAY et al., hereinafter HALLIDAY.
As for claims 1-6, HALLIDAY discloses a fiber (pulp) shaping tool [abstract]. The tool has a first curved surface comprising a first plurality of 2D perforations (48) and a second curved surface comprising a second plurality of 2D perforations (28) [Figure 7]. HALLIDAY discloses a flow structure defining a plurality of 3D perforations interconnecting the first (48) and second (28) 2D perforations such that fluid can flow therethrough [Figure 7]. The first plurality of 2D perforations (48) are greater in number and smaller in sized as compared to the second plurality of 2D perforations (28). The fiber molding tool of HALLIDAY has branched pathways within the lattice infill wherein multiple 2D perforations of the first plurality converge to a single 2D perforation of the second plurality.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2,456,502A HALLIDAY et al., in view of WO 2018/237279A VANDECRUYS, hereinafter VANDECRUYS.
Nota bene: the ‘279 reference repeats some paragraph numbers. For the paragraph numbers that repeat the Examiner includes page numbers.
As for claim 7, HALLIDAY discloses a fiber (pulp) shaping tool [abstract]. The tool has a first curved surface comprising a first plurality of 2D perforations (48) and a second curved surface comprising a second plurality of 2D perforations (28) [Figure 7]. HALLIDAY discloses a flow structure defining a plurality of 3D perforations interconnecting the first (48) and second (28) 2D perforations such that fluid can flow therethrough [Figure 7]. The first plurality of 2D perforations (48) are greater in number and smaller in sized as compared to the second plurality of 2D perforations (28). The fiber molding tool of HALLIDAY has branched pathways within the lattice infill wherein multiple 2D perforations of the first plurality converge to a single 2D perforation of the second plurality.
HALLIDAY discloses that the tool can be made by additive manufacturing [abstract] and that it may be computer controlled [pg. 7 lines 18-32 and pg. 8 lines 7-10].
While disclosing computer control HALLIDAY does not disclose accessing a digital model and using the digital model to control the additive manufacture process by a processor.
VANDECRUYS discloses a method, comprising: accessing, with a processor, a digital model of a fiber molding tool to be fabricated, determining, with the processor [0048, 0095, Figure 1], a distribution of a first plurality of perforations on a first surface of the fiber molding tool, determining, with the processor, a distribution of a second plurality of perforations on a second surf ace of the fiber molding tool, wherein the distribution of the second plurality of perforations on the second surface is independent of the distribution of the first plurality of perforations on the first surface [p.2-3 par. 0006-0008], defining, with the processor, a flow structure extending between the first plurality of perforations and the second plurality of perforations through a thickness of the fiber molding tool such that a fluid is to flow from the first plurality of perforations through the flow structure to the second plurality of perforations [p.3 par. 0010], and modifying, with the processor [0095, 0099], the digital model [0104] of the fiber molding tool to include the first plurality of perforations, the second plurality of perforations and the flow structure [0070-0071];
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to combine the known structure of HALLIDAY with the additive manufacture process/apparatus of VANDECRUYS. It is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The structural mold of HALLIDAY performs the same function when the additive process of VANDECRUYS is used to make it. In the instant case the person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as HALLIDY states an additive manufacturing process controlled by a computer can be used.
As for claim 8, VANDECRUYS discloses determining, with the processor [0095, 0099], the placement and size of the second plurality of perforations comprising extending a lattice structure from the first plurality of perforations towards the second surface, wherein passages in the lattice structure are sized and positioned to align with the first plurality of perforations, and modifying, with the processor, the digital model [0104] to include the lattice structure [p. 6-7 par. 0029].
As for claim 9, VANDECRUYS discloses a flow structure comprising intersection of a lattice volume with the digital model [0104] of the fiber molding tool [p.6-7 par. 0029].
As for claim 10, VANDECRUYS discloses defining, with the processor [0095], a flow structure extending between the first plurality of perforations and the second plurality of perforations comprising defining, for each perforation of the first plurality of perforations, a shortest path to the second surface of the fiber molding tool [pg. 3 par. 0010, 0095-0096, Figure 1].
As for claim 11, VANDECRUYS discloses defining, with the processor, a flow structure extending between the first plurality of perforations and the second plurality of perforations, comprising defining branched pathways between the first plurality of perforations and the second plurality of perforations [p. 10-11 par. 0024, 0095-0096].
As for claim 12, VANDECRUYS discloses generating, with the processor [0095], an additive manufacturing file for the fiber molding tool with the flow structure merged with the digital model [0104] of the fiber molding tool, and additively manufacturing the fiber molding tool to be fabricated with the exterior surface protrusions and flow structure [p.8-9 par. 0017, 0018, 0095-0096].
As for claim 13, VANDECRUYS discloses the distribution of the plurality of protrusions that are determined based of a thickness of the fiber molding tool [0073, 0075].
As for claim 14 and 16, HALLIDAY discloses a fiber (pulp) shaping tool [abstract]. The tool has a first curved surface comprising a first plurality of 2D perforations (48) and a second curved surface comprising a second plurality of 2D perforations (28) [Figure 7]. HALLIDAY discloses a flow structure defining a plurality of 3D perforations interconnecting the first (48) and second (28) 2D perforations such that fluid can flow therethrough [Figure 7]. The first plurality of 2D perforations (48) are greater in number and smaller in sized as compared to the second plurality of 2D perforations (28). The fiber molding tool of HALLIDAY has branched pathways within the lattice infill wherein multiple 2D perforations of the first plurality converge to a single 2D perforation of the second plurality.
HALLIDAY discloses that the tool can be made by additive manufacturing [abstract] and that it may be computer controlled [pg. 7 lines 18-32 and pg. 8 lines 7-010]
While disclosing computer control HALLIDAY does not disclose accessing a digital model and storing instructions to run the additive process on a non-transitory medium.
VANDECRUYS discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium [0100] encoded with instructions executable by a processor, the machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions to, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to access a digital model of a fiber molding tool to be fabricated [0095- 0096], determine a distribution of a first plurality of perforations on a first surface of the fiber molding tool, determine a distribution of a second plurality of perforations on a second surface of the fiber molding tool, wherein a distribution of the second plurality of perforations on the second surf ace are independent of a distribution of the first plurality of perforations on the first surface [p. 2-3 par. [0006- 0008], define a flow structure extending from the first plurality of perforations on the first surface through a thickness of the fiber molding tool such that a fluid is to flow from the first plurality of perforations through the flow structure to the second plurality of perforations [p.3 par. 0010], modify the digital model [0104] of the fiber molding tool to include the first
plurality of perforations, the second plurality of perforations, and the flow structure, and generate an additive manufacturing file for the fiber molding tool with the flow structure merged with the digital model of the fiber molding tool [0095-0096].
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to combine the known structure of HALLIDAY with the additive manufacture process/apparatus of VANDECRUYS. It is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The structural mold of HALLIDAY performs the same function when the additive process of VANDECRUYS is used to make it. In the instant case the person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as HALLIDY states an additive manufacturing process controlled by a computer can be used.
As for claim 16, the lattice ribs of HALLIDAY and passageways are thicker towards the second surface [Figure 7].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights