DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“area” in line 8 is missing an article, such as “an”
“structure” in line 10 is missing an article
“additionally,” is a poor conjunction
This is not a comprehensive list of missing articles or inappropriate conjunctions or transitional terms. Applicant is advised to comb through all the claims to conform to US practice for claim language, including the use of articles and appropriate conjunctions and transitional phrases. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites an “electrode clamp plate”. The specification lacks an accurate description of whether the plate is an electrode, or used for clamping an electrode. It will be interpreted as a plate that can clamp an electrode.
Claim 4 recites detection holes. This limitation will be interpreted to be mere holes with no weight given to the adjective “detection”, as the claim fails to provide further structure on how detection can be made.
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 1-5 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1 recites “in this configuration” in lines 4-5. It is unclear what configuration is being referred to, as all the lines before it is a recitation of parts with no particular configuration of the parts.
Claim 1 recites supported by upper mount support column in line 9. It is unclear what is supported by the columns. Is it the upper mount or the upper mold base?
Claim 1 recites “structure of the entire silicon mold”. It is unclear what parts constitutes the entire silicon mold or the structure of the entire silicon mold, with emphasis on the term “entire”.
Claim 1 recites “this setup” in line 10. It is unclear what setup is being referred to.
Claim 1 recites upper and lower molds in line 11. It is unclear what the upper and lower molds are, as such parts were not previously recited.
Claim 1 recites the area of the upper mount exceeds that of the upper mold base. It is unclear what surface of the upper mount is being used to determine the area. Also, it is unclear what feature of the upper mold base is being compared to the upper mount.
Claim 1 recites “larger positioning holes” in lines 13-14. It is unclear what makes the holes larger. It is unclear in what is being referenced to compare the size of the hole so as to be larger.
Claim 2 recites the support columns serves to adjust the parallelism between the mounts. It is unclear what structural limitations are being inferred to provide for the adjustment. It would appear the term “adjust” is not an appropriate word to use, as there is no indication of what is adjusting or how adjustment can be made with just columns. If anything, the columns fixes the location of the upper mount. Because the breadth and depth of how adjustment is made cannot be ascertained from the claim or the specification, this limitation is indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the tolerance between the positioning hole and the outer circumference of the lower mold base is restricted to within 1 micron. It is unclear how the tolerance is measured. Are the positioning holes adjustable relative to the lower mold base? Is the tolerance measured from the center of the positioning hole?
Claim 3 recites, in the parallelism between its upper surface and lower surface, it is unclear what “its” is being referred to.
In claim 3, it appears there is a middle pit in the lower mold base. It would also appear the middle pit would naturally comprise of a lower surface. Thus, it would appear the middle pit and the lower surface are the same thing. Accordingly, it is unclear what is being compared in “the parallelism between the middle pit and its lower surface”.
In claim 3, it is unclear what is being reference in the limitation “the final precision of dimensional tolerance and tolerance of form and position reaches 1 micron. In other words, the final precision of dimensional tolerance of what? The tolerance of form and position of what? What object is being formed or positioned, such that the tolerance of the form or tolerance of the position reaches 1 micron?
Due to the indefiniteness of claim 3, the tolerance, parallelism, and final precision cannot be examined on its merits.
Claim 4 recites detection holes serve the purpose of monitoring the deformation state. It is unclear how a hole can monitor anything. It is unclear what further structural limitations are being inferred by this functional limitation. Thus, the functional limitations as recited cannot be examined on its merits are not given patentable weight.
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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 117621344 machine translation provided) in view of Hao et al. (CN 113246348 machine translation provided), Dittmann et al. (2023/0416133), and Li et al. (CN 116621429 machine translation provided). Wang teaches a molding assembly that provides for quick installation and removal of molding core, the assembly comprising a lower mold base and a mold core supported by the lower mold base and fixed to the lower mold base (abstract). Wang teaches the mold core is positioned by a combination of spring push blocks (5) connected to the lower mold base via springs (3), pre-press blocks (4) (example 1 on page 6), and a pressing plate (35, corresponding to the electrode clamp plate). As can be seen in figure 1, the mold core is centrally placed on the lower mold base and is secured in placed by the pressing plate (4th passage on page 8). Wang further teaches the assembly comprises an upper mold base (29) that is positioned opposite the lower mold base and affixed to an upper mount (27), and upper mount support columns (22) located at edges of the upper mount (figure 1, embodiment 2 on page 7). Also seen in figure 1, are small blocks at the bottom of support columns (22) that provide for positioning holes (for positioning the columns) on the upper surface of the lower mold base. However, Wang fails to teach detection holes on the edge of each of the positioning holes. Hao also teaches a molding assembly comprising an upper mold and lower mold facing each other, wherein each of the upper and lower molds are affixed to an upper mold base (2) and a lower mold base (4), respectively (2nd paragraph on page 3). Hao also teaches providing for positioning holes on the lower mold base for securing pins for the alignment of the upper and lower molds when closed, and for (detection) holes on the edge of each of the positioning holes for connecting the lower mold base to the molding assembly (2nd – 5th passages on page 5, figs. 4 and 7). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for additional (detection) holes on the lower mold base for positioning of the lower mold base on the molding assembly, as taught by Hao.
Wang also fails to specify a lower mount. Dittmann also teaches a molding apparatus comprising an upper mold and an opposing lower mold. Dittmann teaches the assembly comprises affixing an upper mold on an upper mold base, affixing the upper mold base on an upper mount, affixing the lower mold on a lower mold base, and affixing the lower mold base on a lower mount, thereby providing for a lower mold that is fixed onto the lower mount and supported by the lower mount, wherein the upper mount is supported with support columns located at the edge of the upper mount. Dittmann further teaches the upper and lower mounts provide for the movement of the upper and lower molds during pressing ([0234], [0237]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for upper and lower mounts to allow for the simultaneous pressing of the upper and lower molds, as taught by Dittmann.
Wang also fails to teach a quartz strip below the spring push blocks and a silicon mold. Li also teaches a mold assembly comprising an upper mold base and a lower mold base opposing each other (last passage on page 4). Like Wang, Li is concern with the installation of a mold core on a mold base, so that the upper mold and lower molds are centered to each other (3rd passage from the bottom on page 2). Li teaches similarly arrangements are made for affixing an upper mold core to an upper mold base and for affixing a lower mold core to a lower mold base, wherein the arrangement comprises spring push blocks (29) connected to the mold base by springs for securing a silicon core mold (13/14), and a quartz strip (11/16) positioned under the spring push blocks for reducing heat loss during press molding (top paragraph on page 5). Li teaches placing a quartz strip under the push blocks to separate the silicon mold from the mold base, reduce heat loss and ensure the two are not conducted (top paragraph on page 5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed a quartz strip below the push blocks of Wang so as to help reduce heat loss to the mold base, as taught by Li. Also, as briefly mentioned, Li teaches the mold core is a silicon mold core, which provides for high precision molding of optical lens (page 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a silicon mold core, as they have demonstrated to be a reliable material for molding lens with high precision, as taught by Li.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches a rectangular upper mount and upper mount support columns positioned at each of the four corners of the rectangular upper mount (see figure 1). Furthermore, the shape of the mold core is generally shaped to have any desired shaped, depending on the article being molded. For example, Hao further teaches a mold core having a stepped shaped (3) in figure 1. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a stepped shaped mold core to produce the desired step shape in the molded product, as taught by Hao.
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches a rectangular lower mold base and four position holes on a rectangular for securing the support columns.
Regarding claim 4, Hao teaches the detection holes positioned on the edges of the positioning holes (see figures 4 and 7).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches four spring push blocks comprising springs, which would allow for an adjustable range in the mold core and changes in the magnitude of force that fixes the mold core to facilitate assembly/disassembly, but doesn’t specify pre-press blocks located above the push blocks. Li teaches the combination of pre-press blocks (9), spring push blocks (29), and a quartz strip (11) for securing a mold core to a mold base, wherein the pre-press blocks are positioned above the spring push blocks and the quartz strip are place below, the combination limiting the specific position of the mold core (top paragraph on page 5, figure 2A). Li teaches the combination ensures a concentricity of the upper mold and lower mold (bottom three passage on page 2 and top two passages on page 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention employed a similar arrangement to ensure the concentricity of the upper and lower molds, as taught by Li.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to ¶ 9, applicant points to [0020] for clarification on the area of an upper mount. Whiles claims are construed in light of the specification, the claim remains indefinite because it does not clearly recite how an area is measured. Is the area a cross-sectional area, a top surface area, etc. ?
In response to ¶ 16, applicant argues one skilled in the art can understand that the parallelism between the upper and lower molds are adjusted by changing the distance between the support columns and the lower mount so as to change the parallelism between the upper and lower molds. A clear understanding of how the columns adjust parallelism between the upper and lower mounts is not provided in the claim or in the specification. Applicant cannot introduce new understanding by mere arguments. The specification does not disclose the adjustment is made by changing a distance between support columns and the lower mount. Even figure 1 shows fixed straight columns with a fixed length and having no adjustment ability. Thus, it remains unclear how the columns adjust a parallelism between the mounts.
Applicant has tried to explain terms such as dimensional fit tolerance and geometric tolerances. However, none of these terms exist in the specification or are supported in detail (as argued) in the specification. Nor are they common terms in the art. Most importantly, the explanation provided does not address the indefiniteness of claim 3 as to what object these tolerances are being applied to and how it is measured.
Applicant provided an explanation on how deformation can be monitored through the detection holes using displacement sensors. While this explanation is understandable, it does not eliminate the indefiniteness of the claimed limitation, and the claim continues to recite a detection hole for monitoring a deformation state, when in fact it is the sensor that actually monitors a deformation state. The hole may allow the monitoring of the deformation state but does not actual monitor the deformation state.
In regard to the prior art rejection, applicant has essentially duplicated the figures of Wang, paragraphs [0040], [0041], and [0045] of Wang, and figures 1 and 2 of the application, without offering an explanation. Applicant merely argues Wang operates differently, without pointing out how it is different from the claimed limitations. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Furthermore, applicants argued Wang doesn’t disclose the bolded parts of claim 1, without an explanation. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The lower mount and spring push blocks features are taught by Dittman and Li, as discussed in the rejection above.
Regarding Hao, applicant appears to be arguing non-analogous art. This is not found persuasive as both pertain to molding using upper and lower press molds and thus, are deemed analogous art.
Regarding Dittman, applicant argues Dittman is more complex. This is not found persuasive as the argument does not address the teachings of Dittman relied upon in the rejection. The complexity of Dittman does not deter from the teachings provided for by Dittman, such as the use of upper and lower mounts for the mold bases.
Regarding Li, applicant argues Li does not constitute prior art. Applicant is not automatically granted the foreign priority date. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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 QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
