DETAILED ACTION
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, 4-10, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US 1,976,003) in view of Maures (US 4,826,637).
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 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 circumferential expanded region (36) being an undercut and pressing into the undercut during overpressing.
Maures teaches that a recess/space can be provided as an undercut (Fig. 5, at joint between 12 and 11) and pressing/overpressing a second tool component (Figs. 5-7, item 22) into the undercut (Fig. 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Maures into Bennett because Bennett already provides an expanded region (Bennett, Fig. 2, items 36) and Maures provides an expanded region of a different/interchangeable diameter. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the Maures undercut/expanded diameter and different pressing device and the results would have been predictable (namely, an undercut that expands beyond the rim of the Bennett article).
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 already teaches 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.
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 Maures (US 4,826,637), and further in view of Wiley (US 2,348,871). Bennett and Maures 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 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 Maures (US 4,826,637), and further in view of Simkulak (US 5,087,187). Bennett and Maures 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments appear to be on the grounds that at least some of the features of claim 2 were incorporated into claim 1, and Maures does not teach “an undercut” as claimed since the cavities (15) of Maures are distinct individual cavities which the ordinary artisan would not meet the “undercut” in claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the analysis starts at Bennett, and it should be noted that the Examiner previously considered a rejection of claim 2 over Bennett alone. The Examiner believes that Bennett’s circumferential spaces (especially 36) may be an undercut, but this position could not be presented in the rejection because it would rely on unscaled dimensions from the drawings, namely the relative position of the lip of the mold compared to the outer dimension of the circumferential space (36). In any case, beginning at Bennett’s circumferential space (36), Maures shows that a recess may have a larger diameter such that it constitutes an undercut. One considering the references together would have recognized that the Bennett circumferential space could be provided with a larger diameter and the result would be that the Bennett circumferential space (36) would be considered an undercut. The Examiner does not see why the ordinary artisan would fail to view the Maures cavities 15 as an undercut, and therefore disagrees with Applicant’s argument on this issue. However, the combination should not necessarily be viewed as changing the Bennett circumferential space (36) into isolated recesses of Maures (15). One would have found it obvious to make the Bennett circumferential spaces as an undercut, and Maures shows that this is generally known to the artisan.
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 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