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
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed July 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2-9 are currently amended. Claims 1, 10 and 11 have been canceled. Claims 12-22 are new. Claims 2-9 and 12-22 are pending and under examination.
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 17 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.
As to claim 17, the claim recites that a flare portion that is located at an end portion of the first tubular portion is “close to” the first end opening. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. As a relative term, in this context, it is not clear how close to the first end the flare portion needs to be in order for it to be within the scope of the claim.
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 2, 3, 6-9, 13 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2013/0313760) in view of any one of Melbourne (US 5,322,218), Linderoth (US 3,035,413), Sutton (US 2,554,602) or Poole (US 2,393,933).
Regarding claim 9, Kondo et al. teach molding equipment comprising an autoclave (1) including a heating passage including an inlet port and an outlet port as claimed (Figures 1 and 2 (5) (9) (10)) and auxiliary molding equipment/pipe (13) (paragraphs [0054] and [0062]) that is capable of heating a heating target object (Figures 1-3 (4) (4a) (4b) (11) (12); paragraphs [0054], [0062], [0089] and [0090]) in the heating passage within the autoclave (1) to mold a molding target object, the heating target object including an opening, the auxiliary molding equipment comprising a tubular body including a first end opening (Figures 1, 4, 5, 7 (13) – guide pipe), a second end opening located at an opposite side of the first end opening (Figures 1, 4, 5, 7 (13) – the opposite end of (13)), and an internal passage through which the first end opening and the second end opening communicate with each other (Figures 1, 4, 5 and 7 (13); paragraph [0054]), wherein the tubular body includes a first tubular portion that includes the first end opening (Figures 1, 4, 5 and 7 (13)) and is capable of being located in an internal space of the heating target object and a second tubular portion that includes the second end opening, is capable of being located so as to project to an outside of the heating target object through the opening of the heating target object, and has an outer shape expanding toward the second end opening (Figures 1, 4, 5 and 7 (13)).
Kondo et al. teach a general funnel/bell-bottom shape for the tubular body/guide pipe (13) at the claimed location of the tubular body for collecting and supplying more gas to the interior of the cavity (15) (Figures 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 (13) (15); paragraphs [0054] and [0062]), but do not explicitly teach that in a sectional view, the second tubular portion taken along an axis of the second tubular portion, the outer shape of the second tubular portion is a funnel shape that continuously expands toward the second end opening so as to have a concave shape that is concave toward the internal passage such that a circular-arc center of the concave shape is located outside the tubular body (e.g. as shown in 3 of the instant application).
However, each of Melbourne (Abstract; Figures 2 and 7 (16); col. 1, lines 38-59; col. 4, lines 6-15; col. 5, lines 35-57; col. 9, lines 58-60; claims 11 and 12; the shape improves air intake), Linderoth (Figures 1 and 2; col. 1, lines 10-15 – strong blowing effect; col. 2, line 47-col. 3, line 37), Sutton (Figures 2 and 4 (14) – shape of the inner ring (14) is a belled annulus as claimed for improved and efficient airflow; col. 1, lines 1-11 and 40-54) and Poole (Figure 1 (D) and Figure 2 (M) – (D) and (M) are each on the suction/entry side in their Figure; page 1, col. 1, line 51-col. 2, line 8; page 2, col. 1, lines 52-65; page 2, col. 2, lines 31-57) disclose analogous equipment for collecting and supplying air to a target/interior section wherein the inlet portion, which corresponds to the funnel shaped/bell-bottom end of guide pipe (13) of Kondo et al. (i.e. corresponding to the claimed second tubular portion), in a sectional view taken along a longitudinal axis of the corresponding portion, the outer shape of the corresponding portion is a funnel shape that continuously expands toward the corresponding end opening so as to have a concave shape that is concave toward the internal passage such that a circular-arc center of the concave shape is located outside the tubular body.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Kondo et al. and any one of the secondary references and to have formed the general funnel/bell-bottom end of the guide pipe (13) of Kondo et al., such that, in a sectional view, the second tubular portion taken along an axis of the second tubular portion, the outer shape of the second tubular portion is a funnel shape that continuously expands toward the second end opening so as to have a concave shape that is concave toward the internal passage such that a circular-arc center of the concave shape is located outside the tubular body (e.g. as shown in 3 of the instant application), as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of facilitating the improved collection and supply of more heated gas to the interior of the cavity (15) for better, quicker, and/or more uniform heating of the material.
Kondo et al. make generally clear the funnel/bell-bottom is provided to allow for the collection and supply of more gas (paragraphs [0054] and [0062]). Each of the secondary references provide further details making it more specifically clear that forming a funnel/bell-bottom such that it has the claimed shape provides improved supply or gas or air to the interior/target location. This provides a teaching, suggestion and motivation to modify the corresponding general funnel/bell-bottom portion of Kondo et al. with the more specific funnel/bell-bottom portion taught and suggested by the secondary references.
Similarly, and as is understood to be sufficiently described above, each of Rationales (A)-(D) and (F) also are appropriately applied in this instance (see MPEP 2143 I regarding the applicable KSR rationales).
As to claim 2, in the combination the second end opening ((13) – funnel shape end; paragraphs [0054] and [0062]) is larger than the first end opening ((13) – cylindrical end)
As to claim 3, in the combination the largest-diameter of the second tubular portion is larger than and capable of being larger than an end portion of the heating target object as claimed.
As to claims 6 and 21, Kondo et al. teach a supporting body that is capable of connecting the tubular body as claimed (paragraph [0054]). The specific location and manner of providing the disclosed support (e.g. as set forth in claim 21) is understood to be a routine expedient that would have been readily determined absent a showing of new or unexpected results.
As to claims 7 and 8, the pipe (13) of Kondo et al. is capable of being utilized in combination with a heating target object having the structures as claimed and is positioned within jig ((4) (4a) (4b); paragraphs [0054], [0062], [0089] and [0090]). The heating target object is not positively required as part of the claimed equipment.
As to claim 13, the structure suggested by the combination is capable of being spaced apart and provide passages and flow of gas as claimed. The heating target object is not positively required as part of the claimed equipment.
As to claim 17, the combination teaches flaring the second it. It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated some degree of flaring/belling/funneling on the other end to achieve a desired flow of air through the tubular structure (also see the section 112b rejection above and MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
As to claims 18 and 19, in the combination “an axis” (e.g. vertical axis) of the first tubular portion is inclined relative to “an axis” (e.g. horizontal axis) of the second tubular portion and is capable of being opposed to a tubular portion of the heating target object. Also, the guide pipe of Kondo et al. is in an L-shape and the axes of the first and second tubular portion are inclined.
As to claim 20, the structure suggested by the combination is capable of being spaced apart and configured as claimed. The heating target object is not positively required as part of the claimed equipment.
As to claim 22, the tubular portion set forth in the combination has a shape that corresponds to or is capable of corresponding to a spherical surface of a heating target object. The heating target object is not positively required as part of the claimed equipment.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2013/0313760) in view of any one of Melbourne (US 5,322,218), Linderoth (US 3,035,413), Sutton (US 2,554,602) or Poole (US 2,393,933), as applied to claims 2, 3, 6-9, 13 and 17-22 above, and further in view of Jackson et al. (US 2010/0186899).
As to claim 4, the combination teaches the molding equipment as set forth above. Kondo et al. do not teach the equipment includes a projection on an outer peripheral surface of the first tubular portion. However, Jackson et al. disclose analogous molding equipment wherein the equipment includes a projection on an outer peripheral surface as claimed (Figure 2 (13) attached to (10)/(11)).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Kondo et al. and Jackson et al. and to have included a projection on an outer peripheral surface of the equipment (13) of Kondo et al., as suggested by Jackson et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Jackson et al. of facilitating the connecting/supporting/sealing of the equipment to the molding/heating/jig equipment.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2013/0313760), in view of any one of Melbourne (US 5,322,218), Linderoth (US 3,035,413), Sutton (US 2,554,602) or Poole (US 2,393,933), as applied to claims 2, 3, 6-9, 13 and 17-22 above, and further in view of Lemelson (US 3,875,275).
As to claims 5 and 16, the combination teaches the molding equipment as set forth above. Kondo et al. do not teach the equipment includes at least one hole open in a radial direction of the first tubular portion or a plurality of holes lined up as claimed. However, Lemelson discloses analogous molding equipment wherein the equipment includes at least one hole open in a radial direction of the first tubular portion and a plurality of holes lined up as claimed (Figure 1 (26) and (27))
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Kondo et al. and Lemelson and to have included at least one hole open in a radial direction or a plurality of holes line up of the first tubular portion as claimed in the equipment (13) of Kondo et al., as suggested by Lemelson, for the purpose, as suggested by Lemelson of facilitating the flow of heat transfer material/gas within the body.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2013/0313760) in view of any one of Melbourne (US 5,322,218), Linderoth (US 3,035,413), Sutton (US 2,554,602) or Poole (US 2,393,933), as applied to claims 2, 3, 6-9, 13 and 17-22 above, and further in view of Masahiro et al. (JP 4805230, IDS document).
As to claim 12, the combination teaches the equipment set forth above. Kondo et al. do not teach the autoclave is structured as claimed. However, Masahiro et al. teach and suggest an analogous molding equipment and autoclave wherein the autoclave is structured as claimed (Abstract and Figure 19; also see Figures 11, 13, 16, 17 and 20).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Kondo et al. and Masahiro et al. and to have utilized an autoclave as claimed as the autoclave of Kondo et al., as suggested by Masahiro et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Masahiro et al., of facilitating the production of large-sized items or for further facilitating the production of a homogenous molded product.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2013/0313760) in view of any one of Melbourne (US 5,322,218), Linderoth (US 3,035,413), Sutton (US 2,554,602) or Poole (US 2,393,933), as applied to claims 2, 3, 6-9, 13 and 17-22 above, and further in view of Matzen (US 2014/0027001).
As to claim 14, the combination teaches the equipment set forth above. Kondo et al. do not teach projections forming a bellows shape as claimed. However, Matzen teaches analogous equipment wherein the projections form a bellows shape (Figure 1; paragraph [0031]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Kondo et a. and Matzen and to have provided an outer peripheral surface of the first tubular portion to include a plurality of projections forming a bellows shape as claimed in the equipment of Kondo et al., as suggested by Matzen, for the purpose, as suggested by Matzen, of improving the flexibility of the tubular portion/guide pipe of Kondo et al.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2013/0313760) in view of any one of Melbourne (US 5,322,218), Linderoth (US 3,035,413), Sutton (US 2,554,602) or Poole (US 2,393,933), as applied to claims 2, 3, 6-9, 13 and 17-22 above, and further in view of Fujii et al. (US 5,603,377).
As to claim 15, the combination teaches the equipment set forth above. Kondo et al. do not teach a plate fin with an opening. However, Fujii et al. teach analogous heat exchange equipment wherein a plate fin with an opening is utilized (Abstract; Figures 1-5; net-like material).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Kondo et a. and Fujii et al. and to have utilized a plate fin with an opening as claimed in the equipment of Kondo et al., as suggested by Fujii et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Fujii et al. of facilitating improved heat exchange. of Kondo et al., as suggested by Matzen, for the purpose, as suggested by Matzen, of improving the flexibility of the tubular portion/guide pipe of Kondo et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 20, 2026 have been fully considered. The amendment to the claims has overcome the previous section 112b rejections. As such, the rejections have been withdrawn. Further, the amendment to the claims has overcome the previous prior art rejections. However, as set forth above, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of the amendment to the claims.
It is submitted that the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses analogous tubular bodies.
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 Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights