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 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 7 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.
Regarding claim 7, it’s not clear if the “vacuum tube” recited in line 12 of the claim refers to the second vacuum tube. It’s also not clear if there’s also a first vacuum tube which is not recited in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binda et al. (2006/0113716) in view of Wrosz (2013/0193599).
Regarding claim 1, Binda et al. discloses a molding apparatus comprising:
A lower base 30 including a lower jig 34 on which a lower mold 17B is accommodated;
An upper base 31 located at one side of the lower base and including an upper jig on which an upper mold 17A is accommodated;
A first driver 33 configured to invert the upper base to position the upper base above the lower base;
A second driver 35 provided between the lower base and configured to move the lower base (fig. 1-10, abstract, claim 1, 7, 20).
Binda et al. does not teach an alignment camera unit configured to detect alignment between the upper mold accommodated on the upper jig and the lower mold accommodated on the lower jig when the upper base is located above the lower base; and a controller configured to control the second driver to align the lower mold and the upper mold with each other according to detecting by the alignment camera unit. However, Wrosz teaches a thermoforming press comprising a cam 128 configured to interact with the first mold platform 126to displace the first mold platform relative to the top platform 104. To control the movement of the mold platform 126, the cam 128 can be controllably connected to a motion controlling system such as a hydraulic piston 132. The programmable processor 105 can be configured to control the positioning and movement of the hydraulic piston 132 (see claim 1, , 3, fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Binda et al. with the teaching of Wrosz in order to displace the lower mold relative to the upper mold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach wherein the lower jig includes a first heater configured to heat-cure thermosetting resin applied to the lower mold, and the upper jig includes a second heater configured to heat-cure thermosetting resin applied to the upper mold.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not teach wherein the molding apparatus includes a vacuum device configured to generate a vacuum, the lower jig includes a first vacuum tube that is selectively connected to the vacuum device and fixes the lower mold by the vacuum generated by the vacuum device, and the upper jig includes a second vacuum tube that is selectively connected to the vacuum device and fixes the upper mold by the vacuum generated by the vacuum device.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not teach wherein the molding apparatus includes a vacuum device configured to generate a vacuum, the first driver includes a linear driver configured to linearly move the upper base to an upper side of the lower base, and a rotation driver configured to invert the upper base by 180 degrees, the upper jig includes a second vacuum tube that is selectively connected to the vacuum device and fixes the upper mold by the vacuum generated by the vacuum device, the upper base includes a plate having a fixing groove to which the upper jig is fixed, and a coupling plate that is provided at an end of the plate and to which the rotation driver is coupled, the fixing groove extends to the coupling plate, and a through hole through which the vacuum tube passes is formed in the coupling plate.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach the first driver includes a linear driver configured to linearly move the upper base to an upper side of the lower base, and a rotation driver configured to invert the upper base by 180 degrees.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach wherein the molding apparatus includes a manipulator configured to select a position of the upper base, and the controller operates the first driver according to a position of the upper base, selected by the manipulator, to position the upper bas above the lower base or to position the upper base at one side of the lower base.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach wherein alignment holes are formed in the upper mold and the upper jig, an alignment mark is formed in the lower mold, a lower hole connected to the alignment hole is formed in a lower portion of the upper base, the alignment camera unit is located above the upper base to detect the alignment mark provided in the lower jig through the alignment hole and the lower hole when the upper base is located above the lower base, and the controller controls the second driver to align the upper mold and the lower mold with each other until the alignment camera unit detects the alignment mark through the alignment holes and the lower hole.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not teach wherein the lower base includes a gap sensor configured to detect a gap between the lower base and the upper base, and the controller controls the second driver according to detection of the gap sensor to adjust the gap between the lower base and the upper base when the upper base is located above the lower base.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742