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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claim 18 is newly added claim.
Claims 2 and 7 are currently amended.
In view of the amendment, filed on 12/16/2025, the following rejections are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on 09/22/205.
Rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
New Grounds of the Rejections
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites “the strap body has a stadium shape” wherein the term “stadium” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stadium” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite scope of the claimed terminology, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A stadium can have different shapes such as oval, rectangular, etc and it is not clear if here “a stadium shape” refers to what type of the shape. Reconsideration is required.
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 09/22/2025:
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruhl (US 4,773,788).
Ruhl (US ‘788) discloses a safety strap assembly (11) for removably interconnecting a pair of engaging molds (13, 15) for a plastic molding or diecast die for retaining the molds (13, 15) against accidental separation; a pair of laterally spaced shoulder bolts (19) threaded into and secured respectively to the molds (13, 15); the strap assembly (11) comprising an elongated metallic locking plate (29) spanning and bearing against the molds (13, 15), and having a pair of spaced apertures (35) therethrough, with each aperture terminating in an arcuate keyhole slot (41), receiving the shoulder bolts (19) respectively; and with the shoulder bolts (19) retainingly engaging the locking plate (29), and with the locking plate (29) retainingly engaging the shoulder bolts (19) and connected molds (13, 15) in a locking position; the locking plate (29) being rotatable to an unlocked position aligning the spaced apertures (35) with the shoulder bolts (19), disengaging the shoulder bolts (19) from the locking plate (29); the locking plate (29) being removable from the shoulder bolts (19). (see column 6, lines 20-41)
[AltContent: textbox (Two fasteners (19))][AltContent: textbox (A mold strap (11))]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Two mold halves (13, 15) )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
170
248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Threaded bolts (21))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A first end (41 and 55))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
310
168
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A bore (61), a counter bore (63) defining the intermediate shoulder (65))]
PNG
media_image3.png
304
210
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A second end (41, 55))][AltContent: textbox (A strap body (29, 31))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
314
116
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (A strap body (29, 31))]
As to claim 1, Ruhl (US ‘788) discloses a mold strap (a safety strap assembly 11, col. 3 - lines 28-31) for securing two mold halves (respective molds 13, 15, col. 3 - lines 13-15) together, the mold strap (11) comprising: a strap body (a locking plate 29 and a locating cover 31, col. 3 - lines 61-64) having a first end (a keyhole slot 41, col. 4 – line 8, and an aperture 55, col. 4 – lines 28-29) connectable to a first (13) of the mold halves and a second end (a keyhole slot 41, col. 4 – line 8, and an aperture 55, col. 4 – lines 28-29) connectable to a second (15) of the mold halves, the strap body (29, 31) includes a bore (61) and a counter bore (63) defining the intermediate shoulder (65) between the first end (41, 55) and the second end (41, 55) (see Figs. 7 and 9). However, Ruhl (US ‘788) is silent on disclosing that the bore (61) and the counter bore (63) with the intermediate shoulder (65), which is positioned between the first end (41, 55) and the second end (41, 55), functions as a frangible section, as claimed in claim 1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of Applicant’s invention, to improve the functionality of the bore (61) and the counter bore (63) with the intermediate shoulder (65), as taught by Ruhl (US ‘788), so for the bores (61, 63) or the similar structure acts as a frangible section in order to removably interconnecting a pair of engaging molds for retaining the molds against accidental separation. See col. 1, lines 38-42.
As to claim 2, Ruhl (US ‘788) discloses two fasteners (shoulder bolts 19, col. 3 – lines 31-37), each at one of the first and second ends of the strap body (29, 31), wherein the frangible section (61, 63) has a first break point value of less than a second break point value of the fasteners (19).
As to claim 3, Ruhl (US ‘788) teaches the two fasteners (19) are threaded bolts (threaded shanks 21, col. 3- lines 49-55).
As to claim 4, Ruhl (US ‘788) discloses each of the first end (41, 55) and the second end (41, 55) of the strap body (29, 31) includes a shoulder for receiving a fastener head (25, col. 3, line 57).
As to claim 5, Ruhl (US ‘788) teaches the frangible section (61, 63) comprises a thickness of less than a remainder of the strap body (29, 31). (See Figs. 2, 4, and 7)
As to claim 6, Ruhl (US ‘788) discloses the frangible section (61, 63) comprises a recess in a portion of the strap body (29, 31) extending between the first and second ends (41, 55). (See Figs. 2, 4, and 7)
As to claim 7, Ruhl (US ‘788) discloses the strap body (29, 31) has a shape that can be considered as an oval shape. (See Figs. 3, 6, and 9)
As to claim 8, Ruhl (US ‘788) teaches the strap body (29, 31) comprises two opposing sides extending between the first and second end (41, 55), and each of the sides includes a portion of the frangible section (61, 63). (See Figs. 1 and 9)
As to claim 9, Ruhl (US ‘788) discloses the frangible section (61, 63) comprises a recess in the sides. (See Figs. 2, 4, and 7)
As to claim 10, Ruhl (US ‘788) teaches the recess extends from a first side surface and further comprising a second recess or an opening in a second side surface. (See Figs. 2, 4, and 7)
As to claim 11, Ruhl (US ‘788) discloses a mold strap (a safety strap assembly 11, col. 3 - lines 28-31) for securing two mold halves (respective molds 13, 15, col. 3 - lines 13-15) together, the mold strap (11) comprising: an elongated strap body (a locking plate 29 and a locating cover 31, col. 3 - lines 61-64) including two side walls extending between a first end (a keyhole slot 41, col. 4 – line 8, and an aperture 55, col. 4 – lines 28-29) and a second end (a keyhole slot 41, col. 4 – line 8, and an aperture 55, col. 4 – lines 28-29), and an elongated central opening (bore 61 and the counter bore 63 with the intermediate shoulder 65, col. 4 – lines 31-33) disposed between the two side walls, wherein the first end (41, 55) is connectable to a first (13) of the mold halves and the second end (41, 55) is connectable to a second (15) of the mold halves; and the strap body (29, 31) includes a bore (61) and a counter bore (63) defining the intermediate shoulder (65) between the first end (41, 55) and the second end (41, 55) (see Figs. 7 and 9). However, Ruhl (US ‘788) is silent on disclosing that the bore (61) and the counter bore (63) with the intermediate shoulder (65), which is positioned between the first end (41, 55) and the second end (41, 55), functions as a break point formed in at least one of the two side walls wherein the break point is frangible at a predetermined breaking strain value, as claimed in claim 11.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of Applicant’s invention, to improve the functionality of the bore (61) and the counter bore (63) with the intermediate shoulder (65), as taught by Ruhl (US ‘788), so for the bores (61, 63) or a similar structure acts as a break point formed in at least one of the two side walls wherein the break point is frangible at a predetermined breaking strain value in order to removably interconnecting a pair of engaging molds for retaining the molds against accidental separation. See col. 1, lines 38-42.
As to claim 12, Ruhl (US ‘788) discloses two fasteners (shoulder bolts 19, col. 3 – lines 31-37), each for one of the first and second ends of the strap body (29, 31), wherein the predetermined breaking strain value is less than a fastener breaking strain value.
As to claim 13, Ruhl (US ‘788) teaches the elongated central opening (bore 61 and the counter bore 63 with the intermediate shoulder 65, col. 4 – lines 31-33) comprises a shoulder (intermediate shoulder 65, col. 4 – lines 31-33) extending inward from the strap body (29, 31) and configured to receive a head (25, col. 3, line 57) of the fastener (19).
As to claim 14, Ruhl (US ‘788) discloses the break point comprises a section of reduced material thickness. (See Figs. 2, 4, and 7)
As to claim 15, Ruhl (US ‘788) teaches the break point comprises a recess in each of the two side walls. (See Figs. 2, 4, and 7)
As to claim 16, Ruhl (US ‘788) discloses the break point comprises a second recess in or adjacent to the recess. (See Figs. 2, 4, and 7)
As to claim 17, Ruhl (US ‘788) teaches the break point comprises an opening in the recess of each of the two side walls. (See Figs. 2, 4, and 7)
As to claim 18, Ruhl (US ‘788) discloses the strap body (29, 31) has a shape that can be considered as a stadium shape. (See Figs. 3, 6, and 9)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 12/16/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the office action modification is not disclosed or suggested in Ruhl, and the rationale for the modification is already provided by the disclosed structure/features of the Ruhl device without adding in Applicant’s invention. The rejection lacks proper prima facie case of obviousness and should be withdrawn. The only discussion of a breakable safety strap is found in Applicant’s disclosure, and thus the Examiner’s Ruhl modifications incorporate an impermissible level of hindsight.”
This is not found persuasive because as it has been clarified in the previous office action, a modification to disclosure of Ruhl device results in removably interconnecting a pair of engaging molds for retaining the molds against accidental separation. Please note that 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). Further, 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 of the claims over the prior art, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references between the Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest that if Applicant’s Counsel believes 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
04/04/2026