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
In the applicant’s reply of 10 August 2026, the specification, claims, and drawings were amended. Based on these amendments, the drawing, specification, and claim objections included in the previous office action are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10 August 2026 have been fully considered. To the extent those arguments are directed to the rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 16 March 2026, they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below, which were necessitated by applicant’s amendment. The arguments are addressed below under the headings used in the Remarks.
Claims 1-4 and 10 – Ou
Applicant argues that Ou’s references to “at least one drainage opening” do not identify drainage openings distributed about the periphery of the mould opening in the arrangement required by amended claim 1. This argument is persuasive in part, and the rejection has been revised accordingly. The present rejection does not rely on the recitations of “at least one drainage opening” to establish a plurality of recesses. Ou expressly discloses more than one drainage opening 123 disposed on the inner wall 121 (see [0026]). The distribution of those openings about the periphery of the mould opening is addressed under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the rejection set forth below.
Applicant further argues that the Office action does not establish that the claimed alignment configuration is inherent in Ou, and that the previously cited paragraph [0025] concerns contact between the mold components rather than contact with the stacked layers. The argument is persuasive as to paragraph [0025], and the present rejection does not rely on that paragraph for the alignment limitation. The present rejection is not premised on inherency, and no showing of inherency is required.
Claim 1 recites that the non-recessed portions of the side wall “are configured to bear against” portions of the stacked layers to keep the stacked layers aligned within the mould cavity. Claim 1 is directed to a mould tool, and the stacked layers of polymer material are the material worked upon rather than a structural component of the claimed tool. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, or to the material worked upon by that apparatus, does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus that is capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114(II) and 2115. The Office is therefore not required to establish that the structure of Ou necessarily performs the recited alignment function in operation, but only that the structure of Ou is capable of doing so.
As set forth in the rejection below, Ou affirmatively discloses that the frame mold 120 is to have a configuration at least corresponding to the dimensions of the stack placed within it (see [0032]), that the stack is received within the enclosing space 120c on the top surface of the protruding portion 131 (see [0031]), that the molding space is defined in part by the frame mold 120 (see [0029]), and that a release agent may be coated on the inner wall of the mold 100 to prevent the resin materials from adhering to that inner wall (see [0035]). The portions of the inner wall 121 located between adjacent drainage openings 123 accordingly lie in the interior of the mold 100, form part of the lateral boundary of the molding space, and are positioned to bear against the peripheral edge of a stack of corresponding dimensions received in the enclosing space 120c.
The examiner further notes that applicant’s own specification identifies the recited alignment function as a function performed by the side wall of a conventional mould tool. Paragraph [0042] states that, for a conventional mould tool, in order to keep the stacked layers aligned there is a close fit between the stacked layers and the side wall 403 of the mould opening. The side wall 403 is the side wall of the mould tool illustrated in Figures 4-8, which applicant has designated as prior art in the replacement drawing sheets filed 10 August 2026. Paragraph [0046] further states that the spaces between the recesses continue to serve to align the stacked layers, as in the conventional mould tool. Applicant’s disclosure therefore characterizes the alignment function recited in amended claim 1 as one performed by the side wall of an admittedly prior art mould tool. See MPEP 2129.
Applicant argues that Ou’s stack of multi-layer carbon fiber prepreg is the polymer material being moulded and therefore cannot satisfy a second spacer element that is expressly required to be distinct from that material, as now claimed. This argument is persuasive. The rejection of claim 10 as set forth in the Office action mailed 16 March 2026 is withdrawn. A new ground of rejection of claim 10, identifying the Teflon cloths disclosed by Ou as the claimed second spacer element, is set forth below.
Claims 1 and 5 – Nabighian
Applicant argues that the Office action does not identify disclosure in Nabighian of non-recessed portions of the side wall between adjacent recesses that bear against portions of the stacked layers to keep the stacked layers aligned within the mould cavity. This argument is addressed by the new ground of rejection set forth below, which identifies the curved aperture sidewalls 734 located between adjacent protrusions 741, and which relies on Nabighian’s disclosure that the wafer-level optical element 810 is bounded by the curved aperture sidewalls 734 (see [0043]) and that the membrane 1011 adheres to the curved sidewalls 734 (see [0045]). The response set forth above with respect to MPEP 2114(II) and 2115 applies equally to this ground.
Applicant does not separately contest the plurality or distribution limitations with respect to Nabighian. As set forth below, Nabighian expressly discloses four protrusions 741 constituting the arms of a rotated plus sign concentric with the circle defining the aperture 704, and therefore spaced apart at four different positions about the periphery of the aperture (see [0038] and Figure 7).
Claim 8 – Ou
Applicant argues that the Office action does not identify any teaching in Ou that local cavity height affects the required number of drainage openings, and does not otherwise establish that local opening count was a recognized result-effective variable. This argument is persuasive as to the rationale set forth in the Office action mailed 16 March 2026, and that rejection is withdrawn. A new ground of rejection, which does not rest on Ou alone, is set forth below.
Renkl expressly teaches that, according to the shape, size, form, and contour of the cavity 11, the number of the first regions 55 of greater resin-receiving capacity and of the second regions 57 of lesser capacity may be differently configured, so as to enable a resin flow that is uniform or at least approximately uniform over the circumference of the cavity (see [0058]). Renkl therefore identifies the number of higher-capacity overflow regions distributed about the perimeter of a mould cavity as a variable that is deliberately configured according to the form of that cavity, and identifies uniformity of resin flow about the circumference as the result affected by that variable. Mascheroni expressly teaches that the overflow capacity provided at a given portion of the perimeter of a mould cavity, in terms of the volume per unit length, the depth WB, and the height HB of each vent chamber 15, is set as a function of the thickness of the material at that particular portion of the perimeter (see [0043]-[0045]).
Applicant’s further argument that Ou does not disclose a mould cavity having regions of different heights is acknowledged, and that difference between Ou and the claimed invention is expressly identified in the rejection set forth below.
Claim 9 – Ou in view of Yamamoto
Applicant argues that Yamamoto describes the springs 35 as compressible elements positioned between the upper die 20a and the middle die 20c to maintain an initial distance before the dies are closed, and does not describe the recesses surrounding the springs 35 as preventing lateral movement or otherwise identify them as a technique for locating a thickness-setting spacer such as Ou’s stopping molds 140. This argument is not persuasive.
Yamamoto is relied upon for the structural teaching of a slot formed in the upper surface of one die section that receives a spacing element, the spacing element protruding above that upper surface to bear against an opposing die section. Figures 6 and 7 of Yamamoto show the springs 35 seated in pockets formed in the upper surface of the middle die 20c and bearing against the upper die 20a, and further show the springs 35 remaining within those pockets when the upper die 20a is pressed against the middle die 20c (see Figures 6 and 7 and column 4, lines 44-68). A drawing may be relied upon for what it reasonably discloses to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2125.
Whether the spacing element received in the slot is compressible is not material to the rejection. Claim 9 does not require the first spacer element to be incompressible, and the function of setting the height of the mould cavity is supplied by Ou’s stopping molds 140 rather than by Yamamoto. Yamamoto is relied upon only for the slot arranged to receive that element.
That Yamamoto does not expressly describe the pockets as preventing lateral movement does not defeat the rejection. The reason or motivation to modify a reference need not be expressly stated in the prior art, and may be found in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art or in the nature of the problem to be solved. See MPEP 2143 and 2144(IV). Further, arguments directed to the references individually are not persuasive where, as here, the rejection is based on a combination of references. See MPEP 2145(IV). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a slot which receives and surrounds a discrete element positioned between two die sections serves to locate that element and to restrain it laterally, which is a predictable result of the proposed modification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “400” in Figure 6 has been used to designate both the top section 400 and a distinct feature located between the top section 400 and the middle section 401. Based on the disclosure, the second feature appears to be the protrusion 404, which is described as being included on the top section 400 and shaped to fit into an upper end of the mould opening 409 (see [0032]).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 10 recites “a second spacer element arranged to be received in the mould opening such that the height of the mould cavity is reduced”. It is understood that the term “second” is used to distinguish from the “first spacer element” introduced in claim 9, and for consistency with the specification’s naming convention (see [0013]). The term “second” is not interpreted as requiring the presence of a first spacer element within the scope of claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0362705 (“Nabighian”).
Regarding claim 1, Nabighian discloses a mould tool for forming a compression moulded body from a plurality of stacked layers of polymer material (a spacer wafer portion 700 with a concave spacer-wafer aperture 704 in which a wafer-level optical element 810 is formed from a flowable polymer material; see [0001], [0037], [0042]-[0043], and Figures 7 and 8; see also MPEP 2114(II) and 2115), the mould tool comprising:
a first section having a mould opening defined by a side wall and configured to receive the stacked layers (the spacer wafer portion 700 including spacer region 702 and substrate 850, with the concave spacer-wafer aperture 704 defined by curved aperture sidewalls 734 and protrusion sidewalls 732 and 733; see [0037]-[0038], [0043], and Figures 7 and 8; see also MPEP 2114(II) and 2115); and
a top section configured to close the mould opening to form a mould cavity (the master 820, which closes the top of aperture 704 to form the bounded region in which optical element 810 is cast; see [0043] and Figure 8);
wherein the side wall includes a plurality of spaced apart recesses distributed about the periphery of the mould opening to accommodate polymer material from the stacked layers when the stacked layers are compressed by movement of the top section towards the first section (the four protrusions 741 extending outward from the curved aperture sidewalls 734 into the spacer region 702, which serve as overflow regions that replace the prior art void regions and accommodate excess polymer material during fabrication; see [0038], [0041], and [0044] and Figures 7 and 9; see also MPEP 2114(II) and 2115); and
wherein non-recessed portions of the side wall between adjacent recesses are configured to bear against portions of the stacked layers to keep the stacked layers aligned within the mould cavity (the curved aperture sidewalls 734 located between adjacent protrusions 741; the wafer-level optical element 810 is bounded by the curved aperture sidewalls 734 in cross-section 704A-704A', and the membrane 1011 adheres to the curved sidewalls 734; see [0043], [0045], and Figures 8 and 10; see also MPEP 2114(II) and 2115).
For purposes of this rejection, the recitation “distributed about the periphery of the mould opening” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring only that the recesses of the recited plurality be spaced from one another at different positions about the periphery of the mould opening. The claim does not recite a minimum number of recesses, a uniform or even distribution of recesses, or that a recess be present on every side of the mould opening. This interpretation is consistent with the specification, which states that the recesses “need not be even in their distribution”, that recesses may be preferentially provided where polymer is expected to flow, and that in some examples only a single recess may be provided (see [0046]).
Nabighian describes the shape of the concave spacer-wafer aperture 704 as the union of two concentric shapes, a circle and a rotated plus sign, and states that the plus sign is visible as four protrusions 741 (see [0038] and Figure 7). Because the four protrusions 741 constitute the arms of a plus sign concentric with the circle, they are spaced apart from one another at four different positions about the periphery of the aperture 704, as shown in Figure 7.
With respect to the non-recessed portions of the side wall, the curved aperture sidewalls 734 lie in the interior of the aperture 704 and form part of the lateral boundary of the region in which the wafer-level optical element 810 is formed (see [0043] and Figure 8). Those sidewalls are accordingly positioned to bear against material of corresponding dimensions received in the aperture 704. The recitation of what the side wall does to the stacked layers is a recitation of the material worked upon, and the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114(II) and 2115.
Regarding claim 5, Nabighian discloses that at least one of the plurality of recesses extends along the side wall along the height of the mould cavity (the protrusions 741 and their associated sidewalls 732 and 733 extend through the full thickness of the spacer wafer from top surface 706 to bottom surface 708, i.e., along the full height of the aperture; see [0038], [0044], and Figures 8 and 9).
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 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabighian.
Regarding claim 6, Nabighian does not disclose that at least one of the plurality of recesses comprises a scallop formed in the side wall. The protrusions 741 of the Figure 7 embodiment are rectangular in plan view.
However, Nabighian discloses a wide variety of concave aperture shapes with differently shaped overflow regions (see Figures 7 and 12-15), including the non-symmetric concave spacer-wafer aperture 1504 of Figure 15, which includes scallop-shaped protrusions formed in the aperture sidewall. Nabighian further teaches that the disclosed aperture shapes are exemplary and not limiting, stating that “any concave shape may be used without departing from the scope herein” (see paragraph [0050]) and that the disclosed shapes are merely provided as examples and are not meant to be limiting (see paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the protrusions 741 of Nabighian with a scallop shape, as shown for example in Figure 15 of Nabighian, because Nabighian explicitly teaches that the overflow region shape may be varied freely without affecting the function of accommodating overflow material ([0050], [0027]), and the selection of a scallop shape from among the various disclosed shapes amounts to choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 20, for purposes of this rejection, the recitation “a circumference of the mould cavity” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as the closed path extending around the mould cavity, apportioned between the recesses opening onto that path and the non-recessed portions of the side wall located between them. This interpretation is consistent with the specification, which describes the spaces between the recesses as forming a majority of the circumference of the mould cavity and refers to the volume of the recesses in each part of that circumference (see [0046]-[0047]).
Nabighian does not expressly state the proportion of the circumference of the concave spacer-wafer aperture 704 of Figure 7 that is occupied by the curved aperture sidewalls 734 as compared with the four protrusions 741.
However, Nabighian discloses a variety of further concave aperture shapes (see Figures 12-15), including the polygonal concave spacer-wafer aperture 1404 of Figure 14, which is described as a concave polygon that may be viewed as the union of two concentric regular polygons, a square and an octagon (see [0054]). As shown in Figure 14, the aperture 1404 includes four protrusions of shallow depth located at spaced positions about its perimeter, with the remaining non-recessed portions of the aperture sidewall forming a majority of the circumference of the aperture. Nabighian discloses that the aperture 1404 may be included in the spacer wafer 600 as at least one of the spacer-wafer apertures 604 (see [0054]), and further teaches that the disclosed aperture shapes are exemplary and not limiting (see [0050] and [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the concave spacer-wafer aperture of Nabighian with the shape of the aperture 1404 of Figure 14, such that the non-recessed portions of the aperture sidewall form a majority of the circumference of the mould cavity, because Nabighian explicitly teaches that the aperture shape may be varied freely without affecting the function of accommodating overflow material ([0050], [0072]), and the selection of the Figure 14 shape from among the various disclosed shapes amounts to choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claims 1-4, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0054826 (“Ou”).
Regarding claim 1, Ou discloses a mould tool for forming a compression moulded body from a plurality of stacked layers of polymer material (the mold 100 for carbon fiber composite material, configured to fabricate the composite material from a stack including multi-layer carbon fiber prepreg; see the abstract, [0029], [0031], and Figures 1A-C; see also MPEP 2114(II) and 2115), the mould tool comprising:
a first section having a mould opening defined by a side wall and configured to receive the stacked layers (the frame mold 120 and the bottom mold 130, together constituting a first section; the frame mold 120 defines an enclosing space 120c with an inner wall 121 configured to receive the stack of prepreg material; see [0025], [0029], and Figure 1C); and
a top section configured to close the mould opening to form a mould cavity (the top mold 110 having a protruding portion 111 that protrudes into the enclosing space 120c to define a molding space; see [0024], [0025], and [0029] and Figure 1C);
wherein the side wall includes a plurality of spaced apart recesses distributed about the periphery of the mould opening to accommodate polymer material from the stacked layers when the stacked layers are compressed by movement of the top section towards the first section (the drainage openings 123 disposed on the inner wall 121 of the frame mold 120; during the hot pressing process, excess molten resins are squeezed out from the prepreg layers and flow through the drainage openings 123 into the flow channel 125; see [0026], [0033], and Figure 1C; see also MPEP 2114(II) and 2115); and
wherein non-recessed portions of the side wall between adjacent recesses are configured to bear against portions of the stacked layers to keep the stacked layers aligned within the mould cavity (the portions of the inner wall 121 of the frame mold 120 located between adjacent drainage openings 123; the frame mold 120 has a configuration at least corresponding to the dimensions of the stack of raw materials placed within it, the stack is placed within the enclosing space 120c on the top surface of the protruding portion 131, and the molding space is defined by the protruding portion 111, the protruding portion 131, and the frame mold 120; see [0029], [0031], [0032], and Figure 1C; see also MPEP 2114(II) and 2115).
The interpretation of the recitation “distributed about the periphery of the mould opening” set forth in the rejection of claim 1 over Nabighian above applies equally here.
Ou discloses a plurality of spaced apart recesses. Ou describes the positional relationship between the flow channel 125 and “each of the drainage openings 123”, and states that the flow channel 125 is preferably lower than “the drainage openings 123” (see [0026]), thereby expressly disclosing more than one drainage opening 123 on the inner wall 121. Because each drainage opening 123 is a discrete opening formed in the inner wall 121, the drainage openings 123 are spaced apart from one another.
Ou further discloses that the drainage openings 123 are distributed about the periphery of the mould opening. The frame mold 120 is composed of a plurality of frame bars that together define the enclosing space 120c (see [0025] and Figure 1B). In order to achieve a better drainage effect, the flow channel 125 is arranged along the frame bars of the frame mold 120, and the flow channels 125 in each of the frame bars are connected to one another (see [0026]). Each drainage opening 123 connects to the flow channel 125 through a flow channel 127 (see [0026] and Figure 1C), and Figure 1C shows the flow channel 125 present in opposing frame bars on either side of the molding space. Ou additionally constrains the vertical position of the drainage openings 123: the height of each drainage opening 123 is not lower than the top surface of the protruding portion 131, so that the opening is not blocked by that protruding portion, and the flow channel 125 is positioned no higher than each drainage opening 123 (see [0026]). The drainage openings 123 are accordingly located at the level of the molding space, which has the compressed thickness T (see [0033] and Figure 1C; in the disclosed embodiment, T is 1 mm; see [0037]).
To the extent that Ou does not expressly state that the plurality of drainage openings 123 are located at different positions about the periphery of the inner wall 121, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have so located them. Ou teaches that better drainage is a recognized objective, and provides the flow channel 125 along the frame bars of the frame mold 120 with the flow channels 125 in each of the frame bars connected to one another in order to achieve a better drainage effect (see [0026]). Each drainage opening 123 delivers excess resin to the flow channel 125 through a flow channel 127 (see [0026] and Figure 1C). Providing drainage openings 123 at further positions about the inner wall 121, including on more than one of the frame bars, amounts to a mere duplication of the drainage opening already disclosed by Ou, and would have yielded the predictable result of draining excess molten resin from a greater extent of the perimeter of the molding space, consistent with the better drainage effect sought by Ou. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Ou further constrains the drainage openings 123 vertically, as set forth above, such that the periphery of the inner wall 121 is the direction in which additional drainage openings 123 would be placed.
With respect to the non-recessed portions of the side wall, the portions of the inner wall 121 located between adjacent drainage openings 123 lie in the interior of the mold 100 and form part of the lateral boundary of the molding space. Because Ou teaches that the frame mold 120 is to have a configuration at least corresponding to the dimensions of the stack placed within it (see [0032]), those portions of the inner wall 121 are positioned to bear against the peripheral edge of a stack received in the enclosing space 120c. Ou further teaches that a release agent may be coated on the inner wall of the mold 100 to prevent the resin materials from adhering to the inner wall (see [0035]), confirming that material within the molding space reaches the inner wall 121. The recitation of what the side wall does to the stacked layers is a recitation of the material worked upon, and the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114(II) and 2115.
Regarding claim 2, Ou discloses that the top section comprises a protrusion shaped to be received in the mould opening (the protruding portion 111 of the top mold 110, which protrudes into the enclosing space 120c of the frame mold 120, and whose side surfaces contact the inner wall 121; see [0024], [0025], and Figure 1C).
Regarding claim 3, Ou discloses that:
the first section comprises a middle section and a bottom section (the frame mold 120 and the bottom mold 130, respectively; see [0023] and Figure 1B);
the mould opening extends through the middle section, the top section being configured to close off a first end of the mould opening (the enclosing space 120c extends through the frame mold 120, and the top mold 110 closes off the top end thereof; see [0025] and Figure 1C); and
the bottom section is configured to close off a second end of the mould opening to form the mould cavity (the bottom mold 130 has a protruding portion 131 that protrudes into the enclosing space 120c from the bottom to close off the second end and define the molding space; see [0024], [0025], and [0029] and Figure 1C).
Regarding claim 4, Ou discloses that the bottom section comprises a protrusion shaped to be received in the mould opening (the protruding portion 131 of the bottom mold 130, which protrudes into the enclosing space 120c; see [0024], [0025], and Figure 1C).
Regarding claim 10, Ou discloses a second spacer element arranged to be received in the mould opening such that the height of the mould cavity is reduced, wherein the second spacer element is distinct from the polymer material to be moulded (the Teflon cloths placed into the molding space above and below the stack of multi-layer carbon fiber prepreg; see [0031], [0037], and Figure 1C).
For purposes of this rejection, the recitation “distinct from the polymer material to be moulded” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring that the second spacer element be an element separate from the stacked layers of polymer material that are compression moulded. The recitation is not interpreted as requiring that the second spacer element be composed of a material different in composition from the polymer material, as the specification does not disclose any material for the spacer elements 912 and 913 (see [0013] and [0048]).
Ou discloses that a Teflon cloth, a stack including multi-layer carbon fiber prepreg, and another Teflon cloth are sequentially placed into the molding space (see [0037]; see also [0031]). Each Teflon cloth is therefore an element arranged to be received in the mould opening. Each Teflon cloth occupies a portion of the height of the molding space and thereby reduces the height of the mould cavity that remains available to the carbon fiber prepreg. Each Teflon cloth is a release material separate from the multi-layer carbon fiber prepreg that is compression moulded, and is accordingly distinct from the polymer material to be moulded.
The examiner further notes that claim 10 recites the second spacer element as being “arranged to be received in the mould opening” and does not require that the second spacer element be integral with, or permanently secured to, the remainder of the mould tool. Consistent with this reading, the specification describes the spacer element 913 as a discrete element fitted into the mould cavity underneath the top section (see [0048]).
Regarding claim 20, Ou discloses that the non-recessed portions of the side wall form a majority of a circumference of the mould cavity (the portions of the inner wall 121 of the frame mold 120 located between adjacent drainage openings 123; see [0026], [0033], and Figures 1B and 1C).
The interpretation of the recitation “a circumference of the mould cavity” set forth in the rejection of claim 20 over Nabighian above applies equally here.
The drainage openings 123 of Ou are discrete openings formed in the inner wall 121 and are confined to the level of the molding space of thickness T (see [0026] and [0033]), which in the disclosed embodiment is 1 mm (see [0037]). In other words, the drainage openings 123 are relatively small and, additionally, are contemplated as being provided in small number (“at least one drainage opening 123”; see [0026]). The portions of the inner wall 121 located between adjacent drainage openings 123 accordingly extend around substantially the entire circumference of the molding space and form a majority of that circumference.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0283767 (“Renkl”) and IT MI20121868 (“Mascheroni”).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is understood to require that the mould cavity have regions of differing height, and that a greater number of recesses be distributed in the regions of the side wall bounding the taller regions of the cavity than in regions of the side wall bounding the shorter regions of the cavity.
Ou does not disclose a mould cavity having regions of differing height, and does not disclose that a greater number of recesses are distributed in regions of the side wall where the mould cavity is taller. The molding space of Ou has a uniform thickness T established by the stopping molds 140 (see [0028], [0033], and Figure 1C).
However, Ou teaches that during the hot-pressing process the resin materials in the multi-layer carbon fiber prepreg are molten due to heat energy of high temperature, such that the distances between each adjacent layer are gradually reduced as the top mold 110 is lowered, and thereby excess molten resins are squeezed out from between the adjacent layers of the prepreg and flow into the drainage openings 123 (see [0033]). Ou further teaches that the drainage openings 123 and the flow channel 125 serve to contain the excess resin materials squeezed out during the hot-pressing process, thereby eliminating pore defects and improving bonding properties (see [0034]), and that the flow channel 125 is arranged along the frame bars in order to achieve a better drainage effect (see [0026]). That is, Ou teaches that the function of the drainage openings 123 is to receive excess molten resin that is squeezed from the prepreg layers during compression, and that better drainage is a recognized objective. Ou also teaches that the frame mold 120 is to have a configuration at least corresponding to the dimensions of the stack placed within it (see [0032]), and thus contemplates that the mould tool be configured to the dimensions of the part being formed.
Renkl is directed to a tool for producing composite material components of plastic by a process of high-pressure resin transfer molding (see [0001] and [0010]-[0011]). Renkl discloses a resin trap 33, which by its shape also forms a vacuum duct 35, constructed as a circumferential groove closed around the cavity 11 in the first mold half 3 (see [0056]-[0057] and Figure 4). Renkl teaches that the circumferential groove is dimensioned in first regions 55 of a first depth T1 such that a greater quantity of resin can be received in a shorter time than in second regions 57 of a smaller second depth T2, the second regions 57 acting as a flow brake (see [0058] and Figures 4-5). Renkl further teaches that, according to the shape, size, form, and contour of the cavity 11, the number of the first regions 55 and of the second regions 57 may be differently configured, so as to enable a resin flow that is uniform or at least approximately uniform over the circumference of the cavity 11 (see [0058]). As shown in Figure 4, the first regions 55 are plural and discrete, are distributed about the periphery of the cavity 11, and are distributed in differing numbers along different regions of that periphery, more of the first regions 55 being provided along the regions of the periphery at which greater resin flow is to be accommodated (see [0058] and Figure 4).
Mascheroni is directed to a mould for co-moulding an expanded resin onto an impregnable layer, in which vent chambers 15 arranged about the perimeter of the impregnable insert 7 receive excess expanded resin (see Figures 1, 2, and 2A and [0005] and [0041] of the provided translation). Mascheroni discloses that the vent chambers 15 are plural discrete spaces, each extending between two adjacent fixing extensions 17 about the perimeter of the impregnable insert 7 (see [0041]). Mascheroni teaches that the volume per unit length of each vent chamber 15 is set at or above a multiple of the square of the thickness of the external perimeter edge of the impregnable layer 7 (see [0043]), and that the depth WB and the height HB of each vent chamber 15 are each set at or above a multiple of the thickness of that external perimeter edge, evaluated with respect to the particular edge portion of the impregnable layer 7 under consideration at each location about the perimeter (see [0044]-[0045]). Mascheroni therefore teaches that the overflow capacity provided at a given portion of the perimeter of a mould cavity is set as a function of the local thickness of the material at that portion.
Renkl and Mascheroni are both analogous art. Renkl is in the same field of endeavor as Ou and as the claimed invention, namely mould tools for forming fibre-reinforced polymer components in which excess resin is received in a feature provided at the periphery of the mould cavity. Mascheroni is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant is concerned, namely providing and sizing recesses at the periphery of a mould cavity to accommodate excess material displaced from the material being moulded during moulding. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have distributed a greater number of drainage openings 123 in regions of the inner wall 121 where the mould cavity is taller, in a mould tool of Ou configured to form a part having regions of differing thickness. In a mould cavity having regions of differing height, the taller regions accommodate a greater number of prepreg layers and therefore produce a correspondingly greater volume of excess molten resin when compressed, as taught by Ou (see [0033]). Mascheroni teaches that the overflow capacity provided at a given portion of the cavity perimeter is set as a function of the thickness of the material at that portion (see [0043]-[0045]), and Renkl teaches that the number of higher-capacity overflow regions distributed about the cavity perimeter is configured according to the form, size, and contour of the cavity so that resin flow is uniform about the circumference (see [0058]). One of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have been motivated to increase the number of drainage openings 123 in those regions of the inner wall 121 bounding the taller regions of the mould cavity, in order to match the drainage capacity available at each portion of the perimeter to the volume of excess resin arriving at that portion, and thereby to achieve the uniform elimination of pore defects taught by Ou (see [0034]) and the uniform resin flow about the circumference taught by Renkl (see [0058]). Such a modification would have yielded a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) and 2144.05(II)(A).
The examiner notes that this rejection does not propose the bodily incorporation of the resin trap 33 of Renkl or of the vent chambers 15 of Mascheroni into the mould tool of Ou. Rather, the teachings of Renkl and Mascheroni concerning the distribution and sizing of overflow features about the perimeter of a mould cavity are applied to the drainage openings 123 already disclosed by Ou. See MPEP 2145(III).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,433,915 (“Yamamoto”).
Regarding claim 9, Ou discloses that the first section includes an upper surface facing a portion of the top section (the top surface 120a of the frame mold 120, which faces the flange 110a of the top mold 110; see [0028] and Figures 1B and 1C). Ou also discloses a first spacer element that protrudes above the upper surface such that movement of the top section towards the first section is limited and the height of the mould cavity is increased (the stopping molds 140, which are disposed on the top surface 120a between the frame mold 120 and the top mold 110, protrude above the top surface 120a, and are pressed against the flange 110a to limit the descent of the top mold 110, thereby controlling the thickness T of the compressed prepreg and maintaining the mould cavity at a height corresponding to the height H4 of the stopping molds 140; see [0028], [0033], and Figure 1C).
Ou does not disclose at least one slot in the upper surface arranged to receive the first spacer element. That is, while Ou discloses the stopping molds 140 positioned on the top surface 120a, Ou does not disclose that the top surface 120a includes a slot for receiving and locating the stopping molds 140.
Yamamoto is directed to a manufacturing method of composite articles from prepregs using a matched die type molding jig comprising an upper die 20a, a lower die 20b, and a middle die 20c (see Figures 6-7 and column 4, lines 44-49). Yamamoto discloses springs 35 that are positioned between the upper die 20a and the middle die 20c to maintain the upper die and the middle die at a predetermined distance before closing (see Figures 6-7 and column 4, lines 62-67). As shown in Figures 6 and 7, the springs 35 are retained in slots formed in the upper surface of the middle die 20c, such that the springs are received in the slots and protrude above the upper surface of the middle die 20c to bear against the upper die 20a.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the top surface 120a of Ou’s frame mold 120 with at least one slot arranged to receive the stopping molds 140, as suggested by the slotted retention of spacing elements taught by Yamamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure that the stopping molds 140 remain properly positioned on the frame mold 120 during the hot-pressing process, preventing lateral shifting. Providing a slot to locate and retain a positioning element between two die sections is a well-known technique in the compression molding art, as evidenced by Yamamoto, and applying this known technique to Ou’s stopping molds would have yielded the predictable result of improved positional stability. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
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 John DeRusso whose telephone number is (571)270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao, can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/John J. DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights