DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 16, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 5-10, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US 1,976,003) in view of Schellin (US 20170028457).
As to claims 1 and 17, Bennett teaches a molding tool for producing molded parts from a moldable material with at least one first tool component (24) and at least one second tool component (34). Bennett’s first tool component has a cavity (inherent) capable of holding moldable material and a second tool component (34) configured to be introduced into the cavity of the first tool component for molding (Figs. 2-3). Bennett’s second tool component has a second molding surface (inherent) with a circumferential expanded region (36) on the first molding surface and running parallel to a bottom of the molded part against which moldable material can be pressed in a closed state. Bennett’s second tool is formed from flexible material (page 2, lines 76-80) to form the second molding surface and is capable of deforming during overpressing in the closed state when the second tool component reaches the bottom/middle of the cavity (contrast Figs. 2 and 3).
Bennett is silent to the first tool component having an annular molding surface outside the cavity and moldable material can be pressed into the annular molding surface to form an edge of the molding part that extends beyond a sidewall of the molded part.
Schellin teaches a first tool (Fig. 5, item 80) having an annular molding surface (Fig. 5, item 27) outside the molding cavity. Schellin teaches that the apparatus can be used to press moldable material into the annular molding surface to form an edge extending beyond a sidewall of the molded article.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Schellin into Bennett because Bennett already teaches/provides an article with an expanded region (Bennett, Fig. 2, items 36) for coupling to a lid (Fig. 1, item 23) and Schellin teaches an alternative/substitutable coupling configuration with a bead. One could have substituted the beaded coupling for the expended coupling already taught by Bennett to provide the predictable result that the Bennet article would still be sealed with an alternative coupling configuration.
As to claims 5-8, Bennett provides a solid second tool component (Fig. 2, item 34) which has an internal support structure that influences deformation during overpressing (Fig. 3, next to up/down arrow) even though the entirety of the second molding surface is made from the flexible material and surrounds the non-deformable internal support structure (Fig. 3, next to up/down arrow). As to claims 9 and 10, Bennett provides a second tool component (Fig. 2, item 34) which has an internal support structure that acts as a reinforcement that influences deformation during overpressing (Fig. 3, next to up/down arrow) and constitutes a different material that differs in terms of deformability during overpressing. As to claim 13, the heating device is not interpreted as a claim limitation, and the Bennett first and second tool components are inherently capable of being heated.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US 1,976,003) in view of Schellin (US 20170028457), and further in view of Wiley (US 2,348,871). Bennett and Schellin teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 3, Bennett is silent to openings.
Wiley teaches a second molding surface with openings (Fig. 4, item 99).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Wiley openings into the similar Bennett device as the application of a known technique (venting/relieving trapped air through a punch) to a known device (Bennett’s punch/second tool component) to yield a predictable result (venting/relieving trapped air in Bennett’s molding device. Bennett provides a base device upon which the claimed openings/vents can be seen as an improvement, however, Wiley teaches this improvement (page 3, right column, lines 44-51), and one would have recognized that trapped air in Bennett could be predictably relieved in the same way using the Wiley openings/vents.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US 1,976,003) in view of Schellin (US 20170028457), and further in view of Maures (US 4,826,637). Bennett and Schellin teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 4, Bennett is silent to making the second tool component completely of the flexible material.
Maures teaches a second tool made completely of flexible material
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this feature from Maures into Bennett because Bennett and Schellin both already teach a first method of pressing using an internal support structure that extends into the second tool component, while Maures provides an obvious interchangeable substitute configuration where pressing on the second tool component is performed only from above (Fig. 5, item 20) rather than using an internal support structure like that of Bennett.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US 1,976,003) in view of Schellin (US 20170028457), and further in view of Simkulak (US 5,087,187). Bennett and Schellin teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 12, Bennett is silent to silicone.
Simkulak teaches that silicone can be used as an expandable material (col. 3, lines 28-40).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the Simkulak material into Bennett because Bennett teaches/suggests a rubber (page 1, lines 75-80) and Simkulak provides a silicone rubber (col. 3, lines 30-32) within the scope of the Bennett teaching/suggestion. There was a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that both Bennett and Simkulak are directed to forming a material against a mold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Bennet, Schellin, and the other cited references do not teach a second molding surface comprising at least two portions differing in deformability of the flexible material during overpressing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are addressed by the new rejection above.
The arguments appear to be on the grounds that Bennett teaches a “conical can body” with a cylindrical portion at its top, and therefore does not teach an annular molding surface outside the cavity. Applicant argues that Maures fails to meet these claimed features.
Examiner notes that Schellin teaches the amended claim features and replaces Maures in the rejection of claim 1 above. Schellin teaches a known coupling configuration where a bead is pressed with an elastomer/flexible tool 102 in order to form the coupling. The Examiner views this to be an obvious combination with the apparatus of Bennet in light of the fact that Bennet’s container is coupled to a lid or cover for the container.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights