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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on January 5, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the restriction merely makes a conclusory statement without providing any specific examples, noting that the requirement does not include “such as” type statements to avoid a mere statement of conclusion. This argument is not persuasive. Contrary to the argument, the restriction requirement explicitly contains a “such as” example. The example set forth in the requirement still applies in view of the claim amendments. An apparatus “configured” to deform the flexible material by introducing a medium to press the moldable material against a molding surface does not need to actually perform such pressing. An apparatus may be constructed in such a way such that it is capable of or configured to provide the pressure as claimed without having any clear recognition or intent to do so. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
It is noted that upon allowance of the Group I claims, claims that positively require all the limitations of an allowable claim, including claims directed to a process of using an allowable apparatus/molding tool of Group I, will be considered for rejoinder, as appropriate.
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 2, 7 and 8 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.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “the at least one section of the second molding surface having an at least partially flexible material”. However, claim 1 refers to this section as having “a flexible material”. The difference in chosen language raises a question of scope. Since the same specific “section” is being referenced, the material should have the same recitation. The term “flexible” it is not indefinite in the application. However, trying to distinguish a scope difference between “partially flexible” and “flexible”, when used in the same context, is not feasible. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
As to claim 7, the claim recites “deforming the flexible material in regions with the flexible material”. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. How the flexible material is both causing the deforming and is the material being deformed. It is not clear whether this is a typographical issue where one of the recitations of “flexible material” is not intended (e.g. the second “flexible material” was intended to be “medium”) or whether some unclear deforming mechanism is intended. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claim 8 is rejected as a dependent claim.
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 1-3, 6-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nava (US 4,338,070).
Regarding claim 1, Nava teaches molding tool for producing molded parts from a moldable material with at least a first tool component/female part (Figure 1 (A)) and a second tool component/male part (Figure 1 (B)) wherein the first tool component has a cavity into which moldable material is configured to be introduced (Figure 1 (A1); Abstract; col. 2, lines 45-52); the second tool component has a molding element/shaped part, which is configured to be introduced into the cavity of the first tool component to produce a molded part (Figure 1 (B1); col. 2, lines 52-62); 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 (Figure 2) and at least one section of the second molding surface has a flexible/elastic/rubber material which, in the closed state of the molding tool, 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 (Figures 1 and 2 (C); col. 2, lines 52-68; col. 4, lines 1-9; col. 4, lines 64-68).
As to claim 2, Nava teaches the cavity has at least one undercut and the moldable material is configured to be pressed into the undercut by the at least one section of the molding surface having a flexible material (Figures 3 and 4 (C); (14) (A4); col. 4, lines 13-46).
As to claims 3 and 6 Nava teaches the second surface is formed entirely by the flexible material and extends annularly around the molding element (Figures 1-4 (C)).
As to claim 7, Nava teaches the flexible material contacts the molding element in the resting stead (Figures 1-4 (C) (C1) (C2); col. 2, lines 52-68) and that the molding element has openings/conduits (B2) for the medium as claimed (col. 2, lines 62-68).
As to claim 8, Nava teaches “one or more conduits” are provided and that “one or more collection chambers” are provided (col. 2, lines 62-68). In the scenario where more than one conduit and/or more than one chamber are provided, these will “differ from one another in…position according to…a position or location of the flexible material”. For example, the collection chambers would be positioned at different locations corresponding to different positions of the flexible material. Absent further specificity, this is sufficient to anticipate the scope of the claim.
As to claim 12, Nava teaches the components as claimed are configured to be heated via at least one heating device (col. 5, lines 20-39).
Claims 1, 4-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lebrun et al. (US 2003/0146543).
Regarding claim 1, Lebrun et al. teach a molding tool for producing molded parts from a moldable material (Abstract) with at least a first tool component/female section (20) (Figure 2; paragraph [0072]) and a second tool component/male section (1) (Figure 2; paragraph [0072]) wherein the first tool component has a cavity into which moldable material is configured to be introduced (Figure 2; paragraphs [0072] and [0073]); 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 (Figure 2 (3) (6) (7) (13)); 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 (Figure 2; paragraphs [0020]-[0032]) and at least one section of the second molding surface has a flexible material which, in the closed state of the molding tool, 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 (Figure 2 (6); paragraphs [0033], [0077] and [0085]).
As to claims 4, 5, 9 and 10, Lebrun et al. teach different elastomeric materials may be utilized in different portions and that multiple layers of the same or different materials may be utilized to enhance strength, durability, reinforcement, to improve conformity, to produce desired radius edges and to control consolidation pressure over the part surface (paragraphs [0033] and [0077). This is understood to disclose the different materials, thickness, layers, and reinforcement as set forth in claims 4, 5 9 and 10.
As to claim 6, Lebrun et al. teach the flexible element extends annularly around the molding element (Figure 2 (6))
As to claims 7 and 8, Lebrun et al. teach the flexible material contacts with the molding element in the resting state (Figure 2, e.g. (3) and (6) contact each other at the bottom and top in the figure) and the molding element has openings/holes for deforming the flexible material in regions as claimed (Figure 2 (4); paragraphs [0020]-[0033] and [0077]). The openings/holes (4) differ from one another in position according to a position/location of the flexible material (Figure 2; paragraphs [0072], [0075], [0077; e.g. the different holes in different positions are positioned according to a position of the flexible material so that it can expand as desired/required).
As to claim 12, the molding tool is configured to/capable of being heated with at least one heating device (paragraph [0073]).
Note: claim 3 is not rejected over Lebrun et al. under section 102 or section 103 because base plate (7) prevents the second molding surface from being “formed entirely by the flexible material” as claimed.
Claims 1-3, 6, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Menaldo et al. (US 2005/0276874).
Regarding claim 1, Menaldo et al. teach a molding tool for producing molded parts from a moldable material (Abstract) with at least a first tool component (Figure 7 (26) and (30), reasonably considered with or without (21) as part of the first tool component) and a second tool component (Figure 7 (31) and bladder (19)) wherein the first tool component has a cavity into which moldable material (Figure 7 (5) (12) (14)) is configured to be introduced (Figure 7 (26)); 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 (Figure 7 bladder (19)); 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 (Figure 8; paragraphs [0012], [0045], [0046]) and at least one section of the second molding surface has a flexible material which, in the closed state of the molding tool, 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 (Figures 7 and 8 (19); paragraphs [0012], [0016], [0045] and [0046]).
As to claim 2, Menaldo et al. teach the cavity has an undercut as claimed, which produces a locking rim (paragraph [0046]), and the moldable material is pressed as claimed with the flexible material/diaphragm (Figure 8 (21) (26) (30); paragraphs [0046]-[0048]).
As to claim 3, Menaldo et al. teach the second surface as claimed is formed entirely of the flexible material (Figures 7 and 8 (19)).
As to claim 6, the flexible material extends annularly as claimed around the molding element under a reasonable interpretation (Figures 7 and 8 (19)).
As to claim 11, Menaldo et al. teach the flexible material includes silicone (paragraphs [0046] and [0047]).
As to claim 12, Menaldo et al. teach and disclose the molding tool is configured to be/capable of being heated as claimed (paragraphs [0045] and [0048]
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 4, 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nava (US 4,338,070), as applied to claims 1-3, 6-8, and 12 above, and further in view of Barber et al. (WO 2009/090397).
As to claims 4, 5, 9 and 10, Nava teaches the molding tool set forth above. Nava 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 Nava 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 Nava, 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 Nava (US 4,338,070), as applied to claims 1-3, 6-8, and 12 above, and further in view of Duggins et al. (US 3,642,975).
As to claim 9, Nava teaches the molding tool as set forth above. Nava 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 Nava 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 Nava, 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 Nava (US 4,338,070), as applied to claims 1-3, 6-8, and 12 above, and further in view of Yashiro et al. (US 2019/0184694).
As to claim 11, Nava teaches the molding tool set forth above. Further, Nava teaches the flexible material can be an elastic material such as rubber or an elastomer (col. 2, lines 52-59). Nava 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 Nava and Yashiro et al. and to have utilized silicone and/or thermoplastic elastomers as the flexible material in the molding tool of Nava, 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.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebrun et al. (US 2003/0146543), as applied to claims 1, 4-10 and 12 above, and further in view of Noda (JP 05177697).
As to claim 2, Lebrun et al. teach the molding tool as set forth above. Lebrun et al. do not teach an undercut in the cavity as claimed such that the moldable material is configured to be pressed into the undercut as claimed with the flexible material as claimed. However, Noda teaches an analogous molding tool wherein an undercut in a cavity as claimed is provided such that the moldable material is configured to be pressed into the undercut as claimed with a flexible material (Figures 1-5 (1a) (10) (11) (6), particularly Figures 3 and 4; Abstract; paragraphs [0006]-[0022]).
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 Lebrun et al. and Noda and to have utilized a cavity having an undercut such that the moldable material is configured to be pressed into the undercut as claimed with the flexible material as claimed in the molding tool of Lebrun et al., as suggested by Noda, for the purpose, as suggested by Noda, of being able to effectively mold an article having an undercut portion.
As to claim 11, Lebrun et al. teach the molding tool as set forth above. Lebrun et al. do not teach the flexible material includes silicone as claimed. However, Noda teaches an analogous molding tool wherein suitable flexible/elastic materials include silicone (Figures 5, 6 and 10 and corresponding descriptions).
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 Lebrun et al. and Noda and to have including a silicone material as the flexible material in the molding tool of Lebrun et al., as suggested by Noda, for the purpose, as suggested by Noda, of utilizing an art recognized suitable flexible/elastic material for analogously molding an article.
Claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menaldo et al. (US 2005/0276874), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 11 and 12 above, and further in view of Barber et al. (WO 2009/090397).
As to claims 4, 5, 9 and 10, Menaldo et al. the molding tool set forth above. Menaldo et al. do 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 Menaldo et al. 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 Menaldo et al., 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Levesque et al. (US 2008/0014453; paragraphs [0011], [0028], [0033]-[0038], Figures 1c, 1d and 4-6); Larsson et al. (US 2023/0321866; Figures 2A-2C; paragraphs [0049]-[0065]) and Turner (US 4,443,401; Abstract; Figure 9) disclose analogous and applicable molding tools that should be considered prior to responding to the Office 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