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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
line 14, “three-dimensional mold printing data” should say “said three-dimensional mold printing data”
line 18, “said printer” should say “said three-dimensional printer”
line 27, “an polyurethane composition” should say “a polyurethane composition”
line 30, 31 and 33, “said polyurethane” should say “said polyurethane composition”
lines 38 and 40, “molded cable and/connector assembly” should say “molded cable and/or connector assembly”
line 38, “mold” should say “said mold”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Claim 2, line 2, “OBJ, STI. VRML,…” should say “OBJ, STI, VRML,…” to correct a minor
grammatical error by changing a period to a comma.
Claim 4, line 1, “said UV cured resin composition” should say “said transparent UV cured resin”
for claim language consistency as this limitation is first introduced as “transparent UV cured resin” in claim 1, line 16.
Claim 6:
line 8, “a mold” should say “said mold”
line 9, “form, fit and function data” should say “said form, fit and function data”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Claim 7, line 2, “OBJ, STI. VRML,…” should say “OBJ, STI, VRML,…” to correct a minor grammatical error by changing a period to a comma.
Claim 9, line 1, “said UV cured resin composition” should say “said UV cured resin” for claim
language consistency as this limitation is first introduced as “UV cured resin” in claim 6, line 8.
Claim 10:
line 3, “a mold” should say “the mold” as this limitation is already introduced previously in line 1
line 4, “to said mold to and applying…” should say “to said mold and applying…”
lines 4-5, “to a said mold” should say “to said mold”
line 12, “said polyurethane” should say “said polyurethane composition”
lines 16 and 18, “molded cable and/connector assembly” should say “molded cable and/or connector assembly”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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 the limitation “said file” in lines 12 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While line 11 of the claim introduces “a file format”, the format of a file is not the same as a file.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said final component” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said urethane” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said preheated mold” in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said heat source” in line 36. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a heat source of 140⁰F” from line 24 or “a heat source of 180⁰F” from line 35, and therefore the claim is rendered indefinite. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that said heat source is referring to a heat source of 180⁰F from line 35. This interpretation is support by Figure 3.
Claim 2 recites the limitation of “the group consisting of…” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation of “Stratasys Objet1000 Plus three-dimensional printer” in lines 1-2. The use of the trademark “Stratasys” renders the claim of indefinite scope, since trademarks are not permitted in the claims. See MPEP 608.01(v).
Claim 4 recites the limitation of “Stratasys veroclear polyjet UV cured resin” in lines 1-2. The use of the trademark “Stratasys” renders the claim of indefinite scope, since trademarks are not permitted in the claims. See MPEP 608.01(v).
Claim 7 recites the limitation of “the group consisting of…” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation of “Stratasys Objet1000 Plus three-dimensional printer” in lines 1-2. The use of the trademark “Stratasys” renders the claim of indefinite scope, since trademarks are not permitted in the claims. See MPEP 608.01(v).
Claim 9 recites the limitation of “Stratasys veroclear polyjet UV cured resin” in lines 1-2. The use of the trademark “Stratasys” renders the claim of indefinite scope, since trademarks are not permitted in the claims. See MPEP 608.01(v).
Claim 10 recites the limitation “said heat source” in line 14. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a heat source to said mold at 140⁰F” from lines 4-5 or “a heat source of 180⁰F” from line 13, and therefore the claim is rendered indefinite. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that said heat source is referring to a heat source of 180⁰F from line 35. This interpretation is support by Figure 3.
The dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (CN 114211668 A; hereafter Gu; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation), in view of Li et al. (CN 110216814 A; hereafter Li; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) and Stratasys Objet1000Plus User Guide (NPL 1).
Regarding claim 6, Gu discloses a method of molding cables and connections ([0004]; molding electrical connector cable using potting mold) using additive manufacturing ([0006]; 3D printed potting mold) comprising:
providing design requirements for a cable and/or connection ([0028]; design a potting mold according to the shape of the electrical connector cable to be potted);
using said design requirements to produce a three-dimensional model of a mold ([0028]; design a potting mold according to the shape of the electrical connector cable to be potted);
and printing said mold utilizing a resin ([0029]; polylactic acid (PLA)) on a three-dimensional printer ([0029]; use a 3D printer to print the potting mold).
Gu does not explicitly disclose the design requirements include form, fit and function data, converting said three-dimensional model into a file format that allows for three dimensional printing and computer-aided manufacturing, the resin is a UV cured resin and checking said mold to ensure it meets said form, fit, and function data.
However, Li teaches a method of additively manufacturing molds ([0009]) comprising providing design requirements, including form, fit and function data ([0056-0057]; designing mold comprises accounting for dimensions, spacing and function), using said design requirements to produce a three-dimensional model of a mold ([0056]; use computer to draw a three-dimensional model of the mold), converting said three-dimensional model into a file format that allows for three dimensional printing and computer-aided manufacturing ([0007]; design process for 3D printing involves generating file from CAD model or software for input into 3D printer, wherein the file format can be STL, PLY, VRML or WRL), printing said mold utilizing a resin ([0007]; plastic) on a three-dimensional printer ([0025]) and checking said mold to ensure it meets said form, fit, and function data ([0035-0036, 0059-0060]; performing sealing and heating function test to ensure the mold is properly printed).
Gu and Li are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additively manufacturing molds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gu with the teachings of Li to provide the design requirements include form, fit and function data, converting said three-dimensional model into a file format that allows for three dimensional printing and computer-aided manufacturing and checking said mold to ensure it meets said form, fit, and function data. Doing so would provide molds with good sealing and heating performance (Li [0060]).
Modified Gu does not explicitly disclose the resin is UV cured resin.
However, it is well known in the art of additive manufacturing that 3D printers, such as a Stratasys Objet1000 Plus three-dimensional printer according to Stratasys Objet1000Plus User Guide, can form 3D objects using UV curable resin (Pg. 3-5).
Gu and Stratasys Objet1000Plus User Guide are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additively manufacturing objects from a design. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gu, in view of Li, with the teachings of Stratasys Objet1000Plus User Guide to provide the resin is UV cured resin. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Selecting a commercially available 3D printer and printing resin would allow the designed molds to be manufactured cheaply in a cost-effective manner.
Regarding claim 7, modified Gu discloses the method of claim 6, wherein Li further discloses said file format is selected from a group consisting of OBJ, STI, VRML and PLY ([0007]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Gu discloses the method of claim 6, wherein Stratasys Objet1000Plus User Guide further discloses said three-dimensional printer is a Stratasys Objet1000 Plus three-dimensional printer (Pg. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, modified Gu discloses the method of claim 6, wherein Stratasys Objet1000Plus User Guide further said UV cured resin is Stratasys veroclear polyjet UV cured resin (Pg. 7-4; VeroClear (RGD810)).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CONATHANE EN-1556 Technical Data Sheet (NPL 2; hereafter CONATHANE), in view of Gu et al. (CN 114211668 A; hereafter Gu; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation), CONAP MR-5002 (NPL 3; hereafter CONAP), Ikeda (US 20160089823 A1) and Rao et al. (US 20210162692 A1; hereafter Rao).
Regarding claim 10, CONATHANE discloses a method of molding one or more cables utilizing a mold (Pg. 2, 1st Col. and Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; injection molding watertight electrical connectors, cables and cable end seals), comprising said steps of:
providing the mold (Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; injection mold);
applying a mold release composition to said mold (Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; injection mold may be coated with mold release agent CONAP MR-5002);
mixing a polyurethane composition (Pg. 2, 1st Col.; two-component polyurethane system) and degassing to ~30” of mercury using a vacuum chamber (Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; degas at >27 in. Hg vacuum; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05);
injecting said polyurethane composition into said mold (Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; injecting polyurethane compound into mold);
applying a heat source of 180°F to said mold for at least 16 hours (Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; curing for 16 hours at 180⁰F);
removing said mold from said heat source of 180⁰F (Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; demolding after curing at 180⁰F);
and disassembling said mold and remove molded parts (Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; demolding).
CONATHANE does not explicitly disclose the mold is produced by additive manufacturing, applying a heat source to said mold at 140°F to allow for mold release composition adherence to said mold, removing said mold from said heat source and preparing for injection of said polyurethane composition once degassing is completed, injecting until said polyurethane composition fills a mold overflow reservoir, allowing said mold and said polyurethane composition to rest for one hour at room temperature, allowing said mold to cool to room temperature for one hour prior to removing molded cable and/or connector assembly from mold and deflashing said molded cable and/or connector assembly.
However, Gu teaches a method of molding cables and connections ([0004]; molding electrical connector cable using potting mold) by injection molding ([0035]) using an additively manufactured mold ([0006]; 3D printed potting mold). Gu further teaches the additively manufactured mold can be prepared by applying a mold release composition ([0031]; applying release paint to potting mold), heating to allow for said mold release composition adherence ([0032]; drying in heated oven to cure release paint) and removing said mold from said heat source ([0033, 0035]; installing potting mold after drying release paint). Gu then prepares for injection once degassing of injection material is completed ([0034-0035]; vacuum degassing before injecting).
CONATHANE and Gu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of injection molding to form cable and/or connector assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify CONATHANE with the teachings of Gu to provide the mold is produced by additive manufacturing, applying a heat source to said mold to allow for mold release composition adherence to said mold, removing said mold from said heat source and preparing for injection of said polyurethane composition once degassing is completed. Using additively manufactured molds would result in a short mold production cycle (Gu [0015]) and heating to allow the mold release composition to properly adhere to the mold would prevent the mold release composition from adhering to the injected cable and/or connector assembly (Gu [0016]).
Furthermore, as taught by CONAP, the CONAP MR-5002 mold release agent of CONATHANE is best applied to a mold by heating to 140⁰F (CONAP Pg. 2, Application/Curing Schedule).
CONATHANE and CONAP are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of molds for molding polyurethane. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify CONATHANE, in view of Gu, with the teachings of CONAP to provide applying a heat source to said mold at 140⁰F to allow for mold release composition adherence to said mold. Doing so would ensure the mold release agent properly adheres to the mold and leaves a thin layer after drying to allow for reproduction of very fine details (CONAP Pg. 2).
CONATHANE, in view of Gu and CONAP, does not explicitly disclose injecting until said polyurethane composition fills a mold overflow reservoir, allowing said mold and said polyurethane composition to rest for one hour at room temperature, allowing said mold to cool to room temperature for one hour prior to removing molded cable and/or connector assembly from mold and deflashing said molded cable and/or connector assembly.
However, Ikeda teaches a method of injection molding a cable ([0010]) comprising injecting until a resin ([0059]; molten resin 6) fills a mold overflow reservoir (Fig. 5, 6A-F; [0059]; injecting step fills resin reservoir 501) and deflashing said cable ([0062]; the portion solidified within the resin reservoir 501 and the inflow passage 502 is removed, along with any burr).
CONATHANE and Ikeda are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of injection molding cables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify CONATHANE, in view of Gu and CONAP, with the teachings of Ikeda to provide injecting until said polyurethane composition fills a mold overflow reservoir and deflashing said molded cable and/or connector assembly. Doing so would allow for the manufacture of cables with smaller sheathings (Ikeda [0068]) and good appearance due to reduced scar size (Ikeda [0067]).
CONATHANE, in view of Gu, CONAP and Ikeda, does not explicitly disclose allowing said mold and said polyurethane composition to rest for one hour at room temperature and allowing said mold to cool to room temperature for one hour prior to removing molded cable and/or connector assembly from mold.
However, Rao teaches it is known when molding with polyurethane ([0023]) that resting at room temperature allows the polyurethane to equilibrate ([0060]). While Rao teaches resting at room temperature for 30 mins ([0060]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rest for one hour since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
CONATHANE and Rao are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of molding polyurethane. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify CONATHANE, in view of Gu, CONAP and Ikeda, with the teachings of Rao to provide allowing said mold and said polyurethane composition to rest for one hour at room temperature and allowing said mold to cool to room temperature for one hour prior to removing molded cable and/or connector assembly from mold. Doing so would allow the polyurethane of the molded cable and/or connector assemblies to equilibrate (Rao [0060]) and therefore improve the stability of the formed cable and/or connector assemblies.
Regarding claim 11, modified CONATHANE discloses the method of claim 10, wherein CONATHANE further discloses said polyurethane composition is EN-1556 polyurethane part A and B (Pg. 3; EN-1556 Part A and Part B) utilizing a 100:33 ratio (Pg. 2, Table; Part A 100 to Part B 33).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the references of the record nor any other prior art, taken alone or in combination, teach or fairly suggest the cumulative limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, Gu discloses a method of molding cables and connections ([0004]; molding electrical connector cable using potting mold) using additive manufacturing ([0006]; 3D printed potting mold) comprising: providing design requirements for a cable and/or connection ([0028]; design a potting mold according to the shape of the electrical connector cable to be potted); using said design requirements to produce a three-dimensional model of a mold ([0028]; design a potting mold according to the shape of the electrical connector cable to be potted); and printing said mold utilizing a resin ([0029]; polylactic acid (PLA)) on a three-dimensional printer ([0029]; use a 3D printer to print the potting mold). Gu teaches the method of molding cables and connections ([0004]; molding electrical connector cable using potting mold) by injection molding ([0035]) using an additively manufactured mold ([0006]; 3D printed potting mold) and further teaches the additively manufactured mold can be prepared by applying a mold release composition ([0031]; applying release paint to potting mold), heating to allow for said mold release composition adherence ([0032]; drying in heated oven to cure release paint) and removing said mold from said heat source ([0033, 0035]; installing potting mold after drying release paint). Gu then prepares for injection once degassing of injection material is completed ([0034-0035]; vacuum degassing before injecting).
Li teaches a method of additively manufacturing molds ([0009]) comprising providing design requirements, including form, fit and function data ([0056-0057]; designing mold comprises accounting for dimensions, spacing and function), using said design requirements to produce a three-dimensional model of a mold ([0056]; use computer to draw a three-dimensional model of the mold), converting said three-dimensional model into a file format that allows for three dimensional printing and computer-aided manufacturing ([0007]; design process for 3D printing involves generating file from CAD model or software for input into 3D printer, wherein the file format can be STL, PLY, VRML or WRL), printing said mold utilizing a resin ([0007]; plastic) on a three-dimensional printer ([0025]) and checking said mold to ensure it meets said form, fit, and function data ([0035-0036, 0059-0060]; performing sealing and heating function test to ensure the mold is properly printed).
Stratasys Objet1000Plus User Guide discloses a Stratasys Objet1000 Plus three-dimensional printer that can form 3D objects using UV curable resin (Pg. 3-5) with a resolution of 16 microns (Pg. 5-29).
CONATHANE discloses a method of molding one or more cables utilizing a mold (Pg. 2, 1st Col. and Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; injection molding watertight electrical connectors, cables and cable end seals), comprising said steps of: providing the mold (Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; injection mold); applying a mold release composition to said mold (Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; injection mold may be coated with mold release agent CONAP MR-5002); mixing a polyurethane composition (Pg. 2, 1st Col.; two-component polyurethane system) and degassing to ~30” of mercury using a vacuum chamber (Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; degas at >27 in. Hg vacuum; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05); injecting said polyurethane composition into said mold (Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; injecting polyurethane compound into mold); applying a heat source of 180°F to said mold for at least 16 hours (Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; curing for 16 hours at 180⁰F); removing said mold from said heat source of 180⁰F (Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; demolding after curing at 180⁰F); and disassembling said mold and remove molded parts (Pg. 3, Application/Curing Schedule; demolding).
As taught by CONAP, the CONAP MR-5002 mold release agent of CONATHANE is best applied to a mold by heating to 140⁰F (CONAP Pg. 2, Application/Curing Schedule).
Ikeda teaches a method of injection molding a cable ([0010]) comprising injecting until a resin ([0059]; molten resin 6) fills a mold overflow reservoir (Fig. 5, 6A-F; [0059]; injecting step fills resin reservoir 501) and deflashing said cable ([0062]; the portion solidified within the resin reservoir 501 and the inflow passage 502 is removed, along with any burr).
Rao teaches it is known when molding with polyurethane ([0023]) that resting at room temperature allows the polyurethane to equilibrate ([0060]).
However, none of the references of the record nor any other prior art either alone or in combination, Inter Alia, teach or fairly suggest said form, fit and function data includes raw cable dimensions and cable layout requirements, verifying dimensions with a coordinate measuring machine to ensure surface finish requirements of 64 microns for a cavity and 125 microns for all other aspects of said mold, and measuring a final component to verify shrink rates were accounted for properly. Doing so allows for the manufacture of custom cable and/or connector molds with very precise surface finish requirements to be manufactured at reduced cost and lead times as per paragraphs [0005-0006] of the instant specification. Therefore, claim 1 is deemed allowable.
Claims 2-5 are deemed allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754