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 .
The amendment filed April 27, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites that “at least one of the plurality of thermoplastic filaments is bonded with at least one of the other plurality of thermoplastic filaments. Only one plurality of thermoplastic filaments has been introduced. It is unclear whether “the other plurality” refers to a second, unrecited plurality or was intended to mean another filament within the previously recited plurality. The same ambiguous language is repeated in the conforming step.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nishibori (US 2007/0001336).
Claim 1: Nishibori discloses a method including placing a thermoplastic filament mesh member 30, 31 in a cavity 12 of a mold assembly (figs. 5-8; ¶¶ 69-73), the mold assembly including a forming surface (figs. 5-8), wherein the thermoplastic filament mesh member includes a plurality of thermoplastic filaments that are curled and looped (¶¶ 14-17, 55, 69), and at least one of the plurality of thermoplastic filaments is bonded with at least one of the other plurality of thermoplastic filaments (¶¶ 19-20, 57-58, 84).
Claim 16: Nishibori discloses filling the cavity with liquid and holding liquid in the cavity for a predetermined period of time (¶¶ 70, 74, 77; figs. 5, 7).
Claim 17: Nishibori discloses the liquid not exiting the mold assembly when liquid is held in the cavity (¶¶ 69-71, 78-79; figs. 5-8).
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 2-12, 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibori (US 2007/0001336) in view of Antonyshyn (US 2012/0010711).
Claim 2: Nishibori is silent as to liquid being added to the cavity when the mold assembly is disposed in a tank. However, in the same field of endeavor, Antonyshyn discloses a method including placing a mesh member in a cavity of a mold assembly including a forming surface (figs. 11, 13; ¶¶ 79-82, 91-92); adding liquid at a temperature above a first temperature threshold to the cavity, thereby softening the mesh member and conforming a shape of the member to the surface (¶¶ 81, 92); cooling the mesh member in the mold assembly to set the shape of the mesh member to the forming surface (¶ 82); and liquid being added to the cavity when the mold assembly is disposed in a tank (figs. 11, 13; external reservoir 430; thermal bath 530; ¶¶ 79-81, 91-92). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have used Antonyshyn’s external bath/reservoir with Nishibori’s process because both references heat a porous mesh with liquid in a mold and then cool the formed member to preserve its contour. The modification would predictably improve liquid containment, temperature uniformity, and controlled contact of the liquid with substantially the entire porous article, consistent with Nishibori’s objective that hot water penetrate article 30 and heat it from within (¶ 70) and Antonyshyn’s teaching that recirculation effectively heats or cools the porous member (¶¶ 85-86).
Claim 3: Antonyshyn discloses at least a portion of the mold assembly being disposed in the tank when the mesh member is placed in the cavity of the mold assembly (fig. 11; ¶¶ 79-80).
Claims 4-5: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to place the mesh member in the cavity first and thereafter place the loaded mold assembly in the tank (claim 4), and to have the tank contain the heated liquid prior to that placing (claim 5) because pre-heating the bath liquid before introducing the mold permits molding to proceed immediately at temperature, and loading the lightweight article into the die outside the bath avoids handling the article over the hot liquid. The selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Claim 6: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application that placing the mold assembly in the tank includes submerging the mold assembly in the liquid; immersing the assembly in the surrounding heated bath heats the die, the cavity liquid, and the article uniformly on all sides, achieving the uniform temperature transmission Nishibori prefers (¶ 70) by means of Antonyshyn’s surrounding thermal bath (¶¶ 91-92), with predictable results.
Claim 7: Antonyshyn discloses adding liquid includes at least partially filling the tank with liquid after placing a portion of the mold assembly (mold 410) in the tank (fig. 11; ¶¶ 79-81).
Claim 8: Antonyshyn discloses cooling the mesh member includes removing a portion of the mold assembly (tool 400) from the tank (¶ 82).
Claim 9-10: Antonyshyn discloses forming tool 410 being brought into the cavity and forcing the liquid residing in the cavity into reservoir 435, and removing tool 410 from the cavity which would necessarily expose the mesh member to air that enters the cavity when tool 410 is removed from the tank (¶ 80).
Claim 11: Antonyshyn discloses cooling the mesh member includes placing the member in a second tank that contains liquid comprising a temperature less than a second temperature threshold, wherein the liquid in the second tank cools the mesh member to set the shape of the mesh member to the forming surface (¶ 82), but is silent as to including at least a portion of the mold assembly. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have included mold 410 during the immersion into the second tank in order to maintain the shape of the implant during cooling.
Claim 12: Antonyshyn discloses cooling the mesh member includes cooling the mesh member in the tank (¶ 82).
Claim 14: Antonyshyn discloses cooling liquid in the tank and the cavity below a second temperature threshold, thereby cooling the mesh member in the mold assembly to set the shape of the mesh member to the forming surface (¶82).
Claim 15: Antonyshyn discloses cooling the mesh member includes draining liquid from the cavity and adding liquid below a second temperature threshold to the tank so that liquid at least partially submerges at least a portion of the mold assembly (mold 410) and enters the cavity, thereby setting the shape of the mesh member to the forming surface (¶¶ 80-82).
Claim 18: Antonyshyn discloses cooling the mesh member includes replacing liquid in the cavity with liquid at a temperature below a second temperature threshold that cools the mesh member in the mold assembly to set the shape of the mesh member to the forming surface (¶¶ 80-82).
Claim 19: Antonyshyn discloses cooling the mesh member includes draining the cavity by inserting tool 400 into the cavity after holding the liquid in the cavity for the predetermined period of time, and then providing liquid at a temperature below a second temperature threshold into the cavity that cools the mesh member in a portion of the mold assembly (mold 410) to set the shape of the mesh member to the forming surface (¶¶ 80-82; the predetermined period of time being the time required to at least contact and soften the mesh material).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim13 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, and the 112(b) issues discussed above are corrected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to amended claim 1, as described above, Nishibori discloses a method including placing a thermoplastic filament mesh member 30, 31 in a cavity 12 of a mold assembly (figs. 5-8; ¶¶ 69-73), the mold assembly including a forming surface (figs. 5-8), wherein the thermoplastic filament mesh member includes a plurality of thermoplastic filaments that are curled and looped (¶¶ 14-17, 55, 69), and at least one of the plurality of thermoplastic filaments is bonded with at least one of the other plurality of thermoplastic filaments (¶¶ 19-20, 57-58, 84).
With regard to dependent claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to place the mesh member in the cavity first and thereafter place the loaded mold assembly in the tank (claim 4), and to have the tank contain the heated liquid prior to that placing (claim 5) because pre-heating the bath liquid before introducing the mold permits molding to proceed immediately at temperature, and loading the lightweight article into the die outside the bath avoids handling the article over the hot liquid. The selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
With regard to dependent claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application that placing the mold assembly in the tank includes submerging the mold assembly in the liquid; immersing the assembly in the surrounding heated bath heats the die, the cavity liquid, and the article uniformly on all sides, achieving the uniform temperature transmission Nishibori prefers (¶ 70) by means of Antonyshyn’s surrounding thermal bath (¶¶ 91-92), with predictable results.
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 LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights