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
Newly submitted claims 6-14 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
-First set of distinct species:
Species Ia: claim 6 requires “the octagon shaped protrusions of plates have a size and spacing in accordance with a comb structure associated with a desired type of bee.”
Species Ib: claims 9-14 require “extended length octagon shaped protrusions … having a length sufficient to protrude at least into the corresponding one or more third apertures of the first plate.”
-Second set of distinct species:
Species IIa: claim 7 requires “the pair of plates touch each other”.
Species IIb: claim 8 requires “the pair of plates do not touch each other”.
The species are independent or distinct because for the first set of distinct species, per disclosure of the specification in the instant application, each of claims 6 and 9 belongs to a different and distinct embodiment of the instant application (see paragraphs [0018]-[0019], [0025], [0027]-[0029]) that can not be combined. Further, for the second set of distinct species, the limitations in claims 7 and 8 contradict each other, and each belongs to different and distinct embodiments of the instant application. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1-5 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 8 – 14 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendment
Claims 5-14 are newly added claims.
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn.
In view of the amendments, filed on 11/21/2025, the following objections are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on 08/28/2025.
Objection to claims 1-2
The following rejections are maintained for the reason of records as given in the previous office action. The bases of these rejections are the same as given in the office action, mailed on 08/28/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 106937614)
Examiner’s Note: the following prior art rejection relies on English translation of CN 106937614.
Chen (CN ‘614) discloses a comb foundation machine, comprising an upper template (1), a lower template (2), a silicon rubber septum model (3), a bracket (4) or adjustable hinge (5), a fusing device (6); the bracket (4) or the adjustable hinge (5) is provided with an upper template (1) and the lower template (2), an upper template (1) and the lower template (2) is provided with silica gel comb foundation model (3), a fusing device (6) is set on the bracket (4), wherein the upper template (1), a lower template (2) is made of stainless steel plate, aluminum plate, galvanized iron plate processing forming, the upper template (1); one side of the lower template (2) and the silica gel comb foundation model (3) is a plane or a comb foundation impression (3-3), a lower template (2) is provided with a spill (2-1), sucker (2-2), adjusting hole (2-3), an upper template (1) is provided with a thickness regulator (2-4); handle (2-5), a silicon rubber splash baffle (2-6), adjusting hole (2-3). See claims 1 and 2.
Further, Chen (CN ‘614) discloses the silica gel comb foundation model (3) is comprised of a silicon rubber lower die (3-2) is composed of a silica gel mould (3-1), on the silica gel mould (3-1) has comb foundation impressing with silicon rubber lower die (3-2) of one surface (3-3), the other side is respectively connected with the upper template (1), a lower template (2). See claim 3.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A first aperture 6-6 to receive melted wax )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A closure mechanism (4-8 and 4-9))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Octagon shaped protrusions 3-3)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
486
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A frame 2-1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A lower plate 2 comprising a lower die 3-2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An upper plate 1 comprising an upper die 3-1)]
PNG
media_image2.png
684
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
370
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Holes 2-3 connected to a vacuum pump 2-2)]
PNG
media_image4.png
282
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Chen (CN ‘614) discloses a comb forming device, comprising: a pair of plates (an upper template 1 comprising upper die 3-1 and a lower die plate 2 comprising a lower die 3-2) of having substantially similar outer dimensions and having respective inner and outer surfaces, wherein the inner surfaces of the plates have formed thereon corresponding octagon shaped protrusions (comb foundation impression 3-3) of one or more selected sizes; and a closure mechanism (a balance plate 4-8 comprising a spring 4-9) for holding the plates (an upper template 1 comprising upper die 3-1 and a lower die plate 2 comprising lower die 3-2) together in an operative position, the operative position comprising the plates (an upper template 1 comprising upper die 3-1 and a lower die plate 2 comprising lower die 3-2) compressing therebetween a frame (a spill 2-1); at least one of the plates (an upper template 1 comprising upper die 3-1 and a lower die plate 2 comprising lower die 3-2) having a first aperture (a wax conveying pipe 6-6) configured to receive therethrough melted wax to be conveyed to a space formed between the plates (an upper template 1 comprising upper die 3-1 and a lower die plate 2 comprising lower die 3-2) in the operative position.
Chen (CN ‘614) discloses one side of the lower template (2) and the silica gel comb foundation model (3) is a plane or a comb foundation impression (3-3), a lower template (2) is provided with a spill (2-1), sucker (2-2), adjusting hole (2-3), an upper template (1) is provided with a thickness regulator (2-4). (see claim 2)
Therefore, Chen (CN ‘614) discloses the plates (an upper template 1 and a lower die plate 2) having second apertures (2-3) connected to a sucker (2-2), however, is silent on disclosing the second apertures (2-3) is configured to enable a vacuum pump attached thereto to remove therethrough air from the space formed between the plates (an upper template 1 and a lower die plate 2) in the operative position, wherein the vacuum pressure configured to urge the distribution of wax throughout the space formed between the plates (an upper template 1 and a lower die plate 2) and in accordance with the octagon shaped protrusions (comb foundation impression 3-3) of the inner surfaces of the plates (1, 2) to form thereby a comb structure, as claimed in claim 1,
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify the second apertures (2-3), as taught by Chen (CN ‘301), so to be attached to a vacuum pump for removing air from the space formed between the plates (1, 2) wherein the vacuum pressure is configured to urge the distribution of wax throughout the space formed between the plates (1, 2) in order to prevent the wax liquid splashing around an upper template and a lower template bracket and to improve conveying the wax liquid to the comb foundation model while maintaining the wax liquid temperature and reducing the energy loss, as suggested by Chen (CN ‘301).
As to claim 2, Chen (CN ‘614) discloses upon separation of the plates (1, 2) from the operative position yields a comb structure formed within the frame (a spill 2-1).
Chen (CN ‘614) discloses the upper template (1), a lower template (2) is made of stainless steel plate, aluminum plate, galvanized iron plate processing forming, the upper template (1). See claim 2.
Therefore, as to claim 3, Chen (CN ‘614) teaches the plates (1, 2) are made of metal. See claim 2.
As to claim 4, Chen (CN ‘614) discloses the plates (1, 2) are heated prior to separation by one or more heating devices. See claims 7-8 and 10.
As to claim 5, Chen (CN ‘614) teaches at least one of the heating devices comprises a low voltage heating wire (PTC heater, ¶ [0011]-[0013] and ¶ [0020]- [0021]).
As to claim 6, Chen (CN ‘614) discloses the octagon shaped protrusions (comb foundation impression 3-3) of plates (an upper template 1 comprising upper die 3-1 and a lower die plate 2 comprising a lower die 3-2) have a size and spacing in accordance with a comb structure associated with a desired type of bee. See ¶ [0022].
As to claim 7, Chen (CN ‘614) teaches in the operative position, the corresponding octagon shaped protrusions of the pair of plates touch each other. See ¶ [0022].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 11/21/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “as such, not only would one skilled in the art NOT modify the teachings of Chen in accordance with the vacuum processing…, Chen itself teaches against any such modification.” (See remarks: page 9, 1st paragraph)
This is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Finally, after a full review of the submitted remarks in view of rejections, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references between Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest that if Applicant’s Counsel believes that an interview can benefit the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 D. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754 03/27/2026