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 1 (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 5 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figures 4-8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0002], “It is known to manufacturing parts” should be replaced with “It is known to manufacture parts”.
In [0032], “one or thermocouple holes 406” should be replaced with “one or more thermocouple holes 406”.
In [0039], “figures 9 to 12” should be replaced with “figures 9 to 11”. There is no Figure 12 in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “the moulding opening side wall” should be replaced with “the mould opening side wall” or “the side wall” for consistency with “a mould opening defined by a side wall” as introduced earlier in the claim.
In claim 2, “shaped to be received in the opening” should be replaced with “shaped to be received in the mould opening” for consistency with claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by 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 moulding opening side wall includes at least one recess to accommodate polymer material from the stacked layers when the stacked layers are compressed by movement of the top section towards the first section (at least one drainage opening 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 opening 123 into the flow channel 125; see [0026], [0033], and Figure 1C; see also MPEP 2114(II) and 2115).
Regarding claim 2, Ou discloses that the top section comprises a protrusion shaped to be received in the 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 7, Ou discloses that the side wall comprises a plurality of spaced apart recesses (the drainage openings 123 disposed on the inner wall 121 of the frame mold 120; the specification recites “at least one drainage opening” in multiple locations, indicating that a plurality of drainage openings is contemplated; see [0011], [0012], [0026], 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 (the stack of multi-layer carbon fiber prepreg, which is placed into the enclosing space 120c of the frame mold 120 on the top surface of the protruding portion 131 of the bottom mold 130; the presence of the stack within the mould opening reduces the remaining height of the mould cavity available above the stack; see [0029], [0031], and Figure 1C).
The examiner notes that claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, is directed to a mould tool and does not structurally require a plurality of stacked layers of polymer material to be present as a distinct structural component of the tool. The preamble language “for forming a compression moulded body from a plurality of stacked layers of polymer material” recites an intended use of the apparatus, and the “stacked layers” referenced in the body of claim 1 appear only in functional language describing the purpose of the recess. See MPEP 2114(II). Accordingly, there is no structural limitation in claim 1 that would preclude the prepreg stack disclosed by Ou from also reading on the “second spacer element” of claim 10. The prepreg stack is an element that is arranged to be received in the mould opening and that, when present, reduces the height of the mould cavity.
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 moulding opening side wall includes at least one recess to accommodate polymer material from the stacked layers when the stacked layers are compressed by movement of the top section towards the first section (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).
Regarding claim 5, Nabighian discloses that the recess 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabighian.
Regarding claim 6, Nabighian does not disclose that the recess 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 not meant to be limiting in any way, but are merely provided as examples” (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).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou.
Regarding claim 8, Ou does not explicitly disclose that a greater number of recesses are distributed in regions of the side wall where the mould cavity is taller.
However, Ou teaches that during the hot-pressing process, resin materials in the multi-layer carbon fiber prepreg are molten due to heat energy of high temperature, such that distances between each adjacent layers are gradually reduced as the top mold 110 is lowered, and thereby excess molten resins are squeezed out 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 flow channel 125 serve to contain the excess resin materials squeezed during the hot-pressing process, thereby eliminating pore defects and improving bonding properties (see [0034]). 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.
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 mold cavity is taller. In a mold cavity of variable height, regions where the cavity is taller correspond to areas of the prepreg stack having a greater number of layers. A greater number of layers produces a correspondingly greater volume of excess molten resin when compressed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that regions producing more excess resin require more drainage capacity to effectively remove the excess material, and would have been motivated to distribute additional drainage openings in those regions to ensure adequate resin drainage and uniform elimination of pore defects across the entire molded part. This amounts to routine optimization of the drainage opening distribution to match the expected resin overflow along the mold cavity perimeter. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, see Figures 15 and 16 of US 2022/0395885 (“Watanabe”), Figures 10-12 of US 2018/0178441 (“Yoshida”), Figure 2 of US 2010/0019405 (“Eberth”), Figures 1 and 2 of US 2006/0240138 (“Broad”), Figures 21-23 of US 2006/0093692 (“Miyajima”), Figure 1a of US 2002/0004082 (“Saito”), and Figure 3 of US 2,473,284 (“Knaggs”).
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, 10:00 AM-6:00 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, 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