DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on January 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: “feature” in line 1 of claim 2 is grammatically incorrect. 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 1-5 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with idiomatic errors.
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.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 1 recites in lines 5 and 6, “It is affixed” and “supported by it”. It is unclear what is being referenced as “It”.
Claim 1 recites an electrode pressing plate. There term electrode is used as an adjective. However, the term is a noun. Thus, it is unclear if “electrode” is meant to describe the type of material the pressing plate comprises or if the pressing plate is an electrode.
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 the upper mount support column stabilizes the silicon mold and facilitates the coining of upper and lower molds. It is unclear what is meant by the term coining. It is unclear how support columns facilitate coining of the upper and lower molds.
It is also unclear what are pre-press blocks and the nexus between the pre-press blocks and the silicon core mold.
Claim 1 recites the last line “when it is being fixed in place”. It is unclear what “it” is referring to.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the area”, “the structure", “the entire silicon mold”, “the upper surface”, “the edge”, “the force” , and “the specific position” in various lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 recites larger position holes encircle the upper surface of the lower mold base. The term encircle has the typical meaning of surrounding something, or forming a circle around something. It is unclear where the holes are located, if they are to surround the upper surface of the lower mold base. If they are instead formed on the upper surface of the lower mold base, then it is unclear how they can surround the surface of the lower mold base and be on the surface at the same time. Furthermore, the term “larger” is usually used in comparison to something else. It is unclear what the holes are being compared to so as to be considered larger.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the four corners" and “the rectangular upper mount” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the rectangular or circular”, “the tolerance”, "the outer circumference”, “the parallelism”, “the middle pit”, “the entire lower mold base”, and “the final precision” in lines 2-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 the parallelism between the middle pit and its lower surface. It is unclear what “its” is referring to. Similarly, 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 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.
Due to the indefiniteness of claim 3, the tolerance, parallelism, and final precision cannot be examined on its merits.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the deformation sate” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 5 recites the limitations “the size”, “the magnitude”, and “the specific position” in lines 2-3 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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). 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), providing for positioning holes 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). 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 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, 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 at 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.
Conclusion
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