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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed April 15, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2 and 7 are currently amended. Claims 13-15 remain withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 16-18 are new. Claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 16-18 are under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: at line 3 of claim 7, “of molding element” should be - - of the molding element - -. At line 3 of claim 18, “region laterally press” should be - - region to laterally press - - . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 2, 6-8, 12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 4,443,401) in view of any one of Smeulders (US 2019/0126530), French (US 4,883,633) or Tigner et al. (US 3,901,640).
Regarding claim 1, Turner teaches a molding tool for producing molded parts from a moldable material with at least a first tool component (Figures 2-6 (26)) and a second tool component (Figures 2-6 and 8 (30) (52)), wherein the first tool component has a cavity into which moldable material is configured to be introduced (Figures 2-6 (32)), the second tool component has a molding element, which is configured to be introduced into the cavity of the first tool component to produce a molded part (Figures 2-6 and 8 (30) (52) (60)), the molding element has a second molding surface via which, in a closed state of the molding tool, moldable material is configured to be pressed against a corresponding first molding surface of the cavity of the first tool component (Figures 2-6 and 8), and at least one section of the second molding surface is formed entirely of a flexible material (Figure 8 (60); col. 4, lines 32-57), wherein which, in the closed state of the molding tool, the flexible material is configured to be deformed by introducing a medium via the molding element in order to press the moldable material against the first molding surface (col. 4, lines 32-57), and wherein the first molding surface includes at least one edge region in a lower base region of the first molding surface, the at least one edge region allowing lateral/radial pressing of the moldable material by the flexible material (Figures 5, 8 and col. 4, lines 52-57). Turner does not explicitly teach the tool is structured for forming portions of moldable material with different thicknesses in the molded part.
However, each of Smeulders (Figures 1-6, 9, 12, 13 (46) (60) (76); paragraphs [0049]-[0059], [0067], [0068], [0071] and [0161]-[0163]), French (Figures 1-3; col. 2, lines 16-22; col. 4, lines 18-52) and Tigner et al. (col. 2, lines 15-28; col. 2, line 65-col. 3, line 5; col. 5, line 7-col. 6, line 14) teach analogous molding tools and shaping methods wherein forming portions of moldable material with different thicknesses in the molded part are disclosed.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Turner and anyone of the secondary references and to have formed a molded part having different thicknesses in portions of the moldable material with the tooling of Turner, as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references of forming a part/body/container/can having a desired shape that costs less by utilizing less material at suitable locations and/or to provide the required strength/physical properties to the part at desired locations. Turner teaches the basic claimed tooling and disclosed manner of operating the tooling (e.g. Figure 8 utilized in the mold configuration of Figure 5 where lateral pressing will occur and having the entire surface of Figure 8 being made flexible as set forth in col. 4, lines 53-57 in order to be used in a mold with “pockets in the bottom of the mold cavity to define feet or other bulbous portions”) and the secondary references demonstrate that different thicknesses are analogously produced, as desired. Taken together, the combination teaches and suggests each and every limitation as claimed.
As to claim 2, Turner teaches the cavity can have a pocket/undercut portion (col. 4, lines 52-57). Further, Smeulders teaches the cavity has an undercut portion (Figures 5 and 6 (60) (76)) and French teaches the cavity has an undercut portion (Figures 1-3 (16) (20) (22)). The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claim 6, Turner teaches the flexible material extends annularly around the molding element (Figure 8; col. 4, lines 32-57).
As to claims 7 and 8, Turner teaches the flexible material contacts the corresponding molding element in a resting state and the molding elements have openings differing from one another in configuration and/or position as required (Figure 8 (52) (54) (56) (60) (61) (62); col. 4, lines 53-57).
As to claim 12, Turner teaches heating with a heating device as claimed (col. 6, lines 53-57).
As to claims 16-18, Turner reasonably suggests the claimed configuration (Figure 5; Figure 8; col. 4, lines 32-57). Further, in combination with the further mold structures/configurations set forth by the secondary references, each and every limitation is taught and suggested by the combination. The combination teaches the claimed structure and the same results are achieved in the combination by the suggested expansion to form the molded parts. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
Claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 4,443,401) in view of any one of Smeulders (US 2019/0126530), French (US 4,883,633) or Tigner et al. (US 3,901,640), as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12, 16-18 above, and further in view of Barber et al. (WO 2009/090397).
As to claims 4, 5, 9 and 10, the combination teaches the molding tool set forth above. Turner does not teach utilizing different structures or material thicknesses or different materials or reinforcements or weak points to control the deformability of the flexible material(s) as claimed. However, Barber et al. teach an analogous molding tool wherein the structure, thickness, type of material, reinforcement and/or weak points of the flexible material are selected to achieve a desired deformability as claimed at different locations of the molded structure (page 3, lines 27-32; page 5, line 16-page 6, line 2; page 10, line 22 – page 11, line 4).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Turner and Barber et al. and to have utilized different structures or material thicknesses or different materials or reinforcements or weak points to control the deformability of the flexible material(s) as claimed in the molding tool of Turner, as suggested by Barber et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Barber et al. of controlling the pressure application and molding results to achieve a desired molded article having a desired shape or configuration.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 4,443,401) in view of any one of Smeulders (US 2019/0126530), French (US 4,883,633) or Tigner et al. (US 3,901,640), as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12, 16-18 above, and further in view of Duggins et al. (US 3,642,975).
As to claim 9, the combination teaches the molding tool as set forth above. Turner does not teach utilizing reinforcements and/or weak points which influence deformability as claimed. However, Duggins et al. teach an analogous molding tool wherein the flexible material is reinforced as desired locations to impact its deformability/the way different portions deform/inflate under pressure (col. 9, lines 34-39; Figures 1, 2 and 5 (17)).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Turner and Duggins et al. and to have to included reinforcements and/or weak points (e.g. relative to the reinforced portions) to the flexible material of Turner, as suggested by Duggins et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Duggins et al., of facilitating the ability to deform the flexible material to a desired shape/configuration for production of a desired article.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 4,443,401) in view of any one of Smeulders (US 2019/0126530), French (US 4,883,633) or Tigner et al. (US 3,901,640), as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12, 16-18 above, further in view of Yashiro et al. (US 2019/0184694).
As to claim 11, the combination teaches the molding tool set forth above. Turner does not teach the flexible material includes silicone and/or thermoplastic elastomers. However, Yashiro et al. teach an analogous molding tool wherein the flexible material includes silicone and/or thermoplastic elastomers (paragraphs [0066] and [0067]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Turner and Yashiro et al. and to have utilized silicone and/or thermoplastic elastomers as the flexible material in the molding tool of Turner, as suggested by Yashiro et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of utilizing a flexible/elastic material that is well suited for bring the moldable material into close contact with the mold.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 23, 2026 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
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 Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights