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
The Amendment filed 12/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 10 have been amended; and claims 12-18 have been added. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every 112b rejection set forth in the non-Final Office action previously mailed on 9/18/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vastesson "Thiol-ene & Thiol-ene-epoxy Microfabrication (2017)"; herein 'Vastesson'.
Regarding claim 7, Vastesson teaches an apparatus for reaction injection molding of a structured component (Figure 4.1; pages 39-42, transparent and thermoplastic-like microfluidic devices),
the apparatus comprising a first mold part and a second mold part (Figure 4.1, showing Al mold having upper and lower parts), the first and second mold parts being configured, in a closed configuration, to form a mold that contains a cavity configured to form the component (Figure 4.1, step 2), the mold comprising an injection port configured to receive a UV-curable reaction injection molding resin at a low packing pressure to fill the cavity (Figure 4.1, step 1; page 39, mixture is injected into the assembled mold through an injection inlet; page 40, mixture being cured via UV-light),
wherein at least one of the first and second mold parts is configured to provide a transparency adapted to allow for curing the reaction injection molding resin inside the mold using UV-light (Figure 4.1, step 1, showing upper mold part having UV-light transparent window; page 39, a transparent window), and wherein the first mold part and the second mold part, in the closed configuration, are held together by a clamping device (page 39, clamped together with the mold cavity using a fixture).
The limitation “a low packing pressure of less than 100 bar relative pressure” is intended use of the apparatus. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. In the instant case, Vastesson discloses all the structural limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Vastesson further discloses the mold comprises an evacuation port configured to evacuate air from the cavity (pages 39-40, a vent located on the opposite side of the mold cavity can be used for evaluating air).
Regarding claim 9, Vastesson further discloses the first mold part is formed from a machinable UV-transparent material or comprises polymethylmethacrylate to provide the transparency (Figure 4.1, showing upper mold part being UV-light transparent window; page 39, a transparent winder (e.g., of glass, PMMA)).
Regarding claim 11, Vastesson further discloses the first mold part is formed from polymethylmethacrylate or comprises polymethylmethacrylate to provide the transparency (Figure 4.1, showing upper mold part being UV-light transparent window; page 39, a transparent winder (e.g., of glass, PMMA)).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vastesson, in view of Disawal (US 2013/0292879 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vastesson teaches a method for reaction injection molding of a structured component (Figures 4.1-4.2; pages 39-42, transparent and thermoplastic-like microfluidic devices), wherein the method comprises the steps of comprising:
closing a mold in order to provide a cavity configured to form the component, wherein the mold comprises a negative shape of the component (Figure 4.1; pages 39-40, the parts of the mold are assembled; Figure 4.2, showing mold having negative shape of component);
injecting a reaction injection molding resin at a low packing pressure into the cavity in order to fill the cavity (Figure 4.1; page 39, pre-polymer mixture is then injected into the assembled mod through an injection inlet) ;
curing the reaction injection molding resin in the cavity using UV-light through a transparency in the mold so as to form a cured component (page 40, a first thiol-ene curing step, which is performed by UV-light exposure; Figure 4.1, showing mold having a UV-light transparent window);
opening the mold (Figure 4.1, step 3); and
demolding the cured component (Figure 4.1; page 40, after demolding, residual parts are cut off).
Vastesson does not disclose the low packing pressure being of less than 100 bar relative pressure.
Disawal teaches a method for reaction injection molding (paragraphs 0032, 0142-0143) of a structured component (claim 1), comprising: providing a mold having a negative shape of the component (claim 1; paragraphs 0134, 0150); and injecting a resin into the mold at a packing pressure less than 100 bar (paragraphs 0109, 0112, discloses packing pressure during injection molding being 1000 psi (i.e., 68 bar). Hence, a packing pressure less than 100 bar in reaction injection molding is known in the art. Disawal discloses the packing pressure allows for microscale and nanoscale size features to be injection molded (paragraph 00129). As Vastesson relates to microfabrication of structures via reaction injection molding, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have utilized low packing pressure less than 100 bar, as disclosed by Disawal for the purpose of forming micro or nanoscale structures or features.
Regarding claim 2, Vastesson, in view of Disawal, teaches all the elements of claim 1 and further discloses evacuating air from the cavity in order to provide a partial vacuum in the cavity (pages 39-40 of Vastesson, a vent located on the opposite side of the mold cavity…used for evacuating the air that is trapped inside the mold chamber), but does not disclose the evacuating air step is between the step of closing and the step of injecting the following step is performed. However, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have performed the step of evacuating air between the step of closing the mold and the step of injecting the reaction injection molding resin to facilitate in filling of the mold cavity.
Regarding claim 3, Vastesson, in view of Disawal, further disclose a temperature of the reaction injection molding resin is not actively changed substantially during the curing and/or wherein the temperature is maintained in a range between 0°C and 50°C (Figure 4.1, step 2, temperature stabilization by heat dissipation or active cooling; pages 39-41 of Vastesson).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Vastesson, in view of Disawal, further discloses the reaction injection molding resin is a UV-curable prepolymer (pages 39-40 of Vastesson, thiol-ene-epoxy pre-polymer…curing step, which is performed by UV-light), but does not disclose the reaction injection molding resin with a low viscosity at room temperature, the low viscosity being in a range of from 1 mPas to 10,000 mPas; nor a range of from 500 mPas to 5,000 mPas.
However, as disclosed by Vastesson, the prepolymer is injected into the mold via a syringe (Figure 4.1; page 39 of Vastesson). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have utilized a prepolymer with a lower viscosity at room temperature to facilitate injection of the prepolymer into the mold cavity (i.e., higher viscosities may clog syringe). Vastesson does not disclose the specific viscosity of the prepolymer. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum viscosity through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. One would have been motivated to optimize the viscosity for filling and molding of finer structures.
Regarding claim 5, Vastesson, in view of Disawal, further discloses the reaction injection molding resin is thiol-ene-based or thiol-ene-epoxy-based (pages 39-40 of Vastesson, thiol-ene-epoxy pre-polymer).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “obtained by a method…” is a product-by-process limitation. Note that determination of patentability is based on the product apparatus itself, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688, and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 145, 147; see also In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985). Note also that it is Applicant's burden to prove that an unobvious difference exists, In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (CAFC 1983), and Applicant must show that different methods of manufacture produce articles having inherently different characteristics, Ex: parte Skinner, 2 USPQ2d 1788. See MPEP § 2113. Nonetheless, Vastesson, in view of Disawal, discloses a component (Figures 4.1-4.2 of Vastesson) obtained by a method of claim 1 (pages 39-41 of Vastesson, reference claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claims 12-15, Vastesson, in view of Disawa, teaches all the elements of claims 1 and 2, but does not disclose the low packing pressure is less than 50 bar relative pressure, is less than 25 bar relative pressure, is less than 10 bar relative pressure, nor is atmospheric pressure. However, Disawa discloses low packing pressures enable micro and nanoscale features to be reaction injection molded. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters (i.e., packing pressure) through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. One would have been motivated to optimize the low packing pressures for molding of finer structures.
Regarding claims 16-17, Vastesson, in view of Disawa, teaches all the elements of claim 15, but does not disclose the partial vacuum is in a range of between 0.1 mbar to 100 mbar below atmospheric pressure; nor 1 mbar to 10 mbar below atmospheric pressure. However, Vastesson discloses evacuating air from the cavity in order to provide a partial vacuum in the cavity (pages 39-40 of Vastesson, a vent located on the opposite side of the mold cavity…used for evacuating the air that is trapped inside the mold chamber). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters (i.e., packing pressure) through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. One would have been motivated to optimize the level of vacuum in the cavity for molding of finer structures. Further, the providing a vacuum would aid in achieving lower packing pressures of the mold.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vastesson, in view of Dreyer (DE102019110124A1; of record), Bojkova (US2012/0286435A1) and Fujiwara (JPH0753951Y2; of record).
Regarding claim 10, Vastesson teaches a system for reaction injection molding of a structured component (Figure 4.1; pages 39-41), wherein the system comprises an apparatus according to claim 8 (reference claim 8 rejection); but does not disclose the system comprises: a UV-light source, a reservoir for the UV-curable reaction injection molding resin in fluid connection to the injection port, and a vacuum pump in fluid connection to the evacuation port.
Dreyer teaches a system for reaction injection molding of a structured component (Figures 1-2; paragraphs 0026-0028), wherein the system comprises a mold (12) having a first (14) and second mold part (16) forming a cavity (10), wherein at least one of the first and second mold parts is configured to provide a transparency adapted to allow curing a resin inside the mold (transparent cutouts 22 in Figure 1-2; paragraphs 0018, 0031) according to claim 7 (reference claim 7 rejection). Further, the system comprises a UV-light source (24,34 in Figures 1-2; paragraphs 0019, 0031). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have combined the UV-light sources of the system of Dreyer to the system of Vastesson and the UV-light sources would have performed the same function as it does separately. Further, as Vastesson disclose the use of UV-light to cure the component, the results of the combination would have been predictable for one skilled in the art.
Bojkova teaches a system for reaction injection molding of a structured component (Figure 1), wherein the components for injecting into a mold are stored within reservoirs (Tank A, Tank B; paragraphs 0212-0217) and connected to an injection nozzle (Figure 1). The tanks (i.e., reservoirs) allow the components to be mixed together and degassed prior to injecting (paragraph 0217). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have provided tanks (i.e., reservoirs) for the reaction injection molding resin in the system of Vastesson in to allow mixing and degassing of the prepolymer monomers of Vastesson as also disclosed by Vastesson (page 39, mixing the monomers and initiators by vortexing followed by degassing). Hence, the results would have been predictable to one skilled in the art. One would have been motivated to provide tanks (i.e., reservoirs) for controlled metering and/or mixing of the components.
Fujiwara teaches a system for reaction injection molding of a structured component (paragraph 0006), comprising a mold having a first and second mold part (paragraphs 0006, 0010, upper mold and lower mold), wherein a vacuum pump is connected to the mold to depressurize the cavity of the mold (comparative example 2). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have combined the vacuum pump of the system of Fujiwara to the system of Vastesson and the vacuum would have performed the same function as it does separately. Further, as Vastesson discloses air can be evacuated from the mold cavity via a vent (paragraphs 39-40), the results of the combination would have been predictable for one skilled in the art. One would have been motivated to provide a vacuum pump to the vent to facilitate in removal of air within the mold cavity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Disawal (US 2013/0292879 A1), which discloses a packing pressure less than 100 bar in reaction injection molding.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 and 10 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, claims 7 and 10 relate to apparatuses. The limitation “a low packing pressure of less than 100 bar relative pressure” is intended use of the apparatus. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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 L 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 3/29/2026
Prosecution Insights