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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 02/02/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-15 are withdrawn.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terazawa et al. (US 2002/0127464).
Regarding claim 1, Terazawa discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-8, a manufacturing apparatus for a separator for a fuel cell, comprising:
a primary mold comprising an upper mold in which an upper molding part is formed, and a lower mold in which a lower molding part is formed, to form a flow path on a material (e.g., as shown in Figs. 1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 3(a), 3(b), only one side (or surface) of the sheet-form base material being created with grooves (or a flow path) by the second rolling rollers 16a and 16b; here, the second rolling rollers 16 can be considered as the claimed primary mold); and
a secondary mold comprising a pressing die with a predetermined pressing force, and re-pressing a molded product formed by pressing the material in the primary mold to planarize a top surface of a side wall of the flow path formed in the molded product (e.g., as illustrated in Fig.1, the blanking die assembly 18 blanks the heated sheet-form base material into a predetermined shape ([0025], lines 13-19); Here, the blanking die assembly can be considered as the claimed secondary mold).
However, Terazawa does not explicitly disclose the blanking die assembly 18 comprising a pressing roll just like the roller 16a or 16b.
Terazawa discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of the first rolling rollers 15 being formed by upper and lower rollers having plane peripheral surfaces for rolling the sheet-form base material (as shown in Fig. 1), or the second rolling rollers 16 being constructed by an upper roller 16a and lower roller 16b having inverted groove patterns on the peripheral surfaces (as shown in Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) into the blanking die assembly 18. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the roller dies, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the roller dies into the blanking die assembly for the purpose of improve the production of the molded parts with a higher quality.
Claims 4, 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terazawa et al. (US 2002/0127464) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Imaizumi et al. (US 2022/0161483).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 6, Terazawa discloses that, as illustrated in Fig.1, the blanking die assembly 18 blanks the heated sheet-form base material into a predetermined shape ([0025], lines 13-19).
However, Terazawa does not disclose the detailed structures of the secondary mold having the roll die fixed and the pressing roll configured to move in a rotating and pressed state.
In the same field of endeavor, thin plate-like laminate, Imaizumi discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, the pressurization part 50, as shown in Figs. 6, 7, comprises a compression roller device 51 which compresses the outer surface of the heated mold 110 to form the thin plate-like laminate 80. The compression roller device 51 comprises a lower compression roller 52 and an upper compression roller 54, and a pressurization part lifting means 56 comprising a pressure cylinder or the like which raises and lowers the upper compression roller 54 ([0061], lines 1-13). Thus, at least, the upper compression roller 54 can be considered as in a fixed position.
Further, Imaizumi discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 11, 15, conversely, in compression by the two compression rollers 52, 54, a one-dimensional (linear) pressing force between the contact positions P1 and P2 acts on the mold 111 retained by the mold retention structure 100. Since the pressurized part of the mold 111 is limited to the portion between the contact positions P1 and P2, the pressurization acts relatively uniformly and the occurrence of pressure unevenness is suppressed ([0085], lines 1-8 from bottom). Thus, Imaizumi discloses that, through the two compression rollers 52, 54, the molded part in the secondary mold is planarized on a top surface of a side wall of a flow path formed on both surfaces of the molded part.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Terazawa to have the secondary mold as Imaizumi teaches that it is known to have at least the upper compression roller 54 being considered as in a fixed position, and through the two compression rollers 52, 54, the molded part in the secondary mold being planarized on a top surface of a side wall of a flow path formed on both surfaces of the molded part. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claim 2, the base reference Terazawa does not disclose that the side wall formed on the molded product is formed to be higher than the edge. The reference Imaizumi fails to disclose these features as well.
Claim 3 depended on claim 2 is allowed as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 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 L Hindenlang can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741