CTNF 18/741,810 CTNF 90493 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 6 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 6, the instant claim recites the phrases "the test pieces" in line 3 and “the holder portions” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting in unclear scope of the claim. As to Claim 6, the instant claim further recites the limitation “each of the plurality of the test pieces being the test piece” and “each of the plurality of the holder portions being the holder portion” at lines 6 – 9. It is vague/unclear as to what is meant by the aforementioned limitation since plurality is meant to be for multiple components however the claim requires the “plurality of the test pieces” as being “the test piece” (i.e., being singular and not plural parts). Note that “the test piece” (line 7) and “the holder portion” (line 9) is understood to be the same as “a test piece” (claim 1, line 4) and “a holder portion” (claim 1, line 6) from which the instant claim depends from. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by JP 2000314688 A to Takagi Tsukasa (hereinafter “ Takagi ”) . Note: machine translated document of Takagi is attached for easier reference. Regarding Claim 1, Takagi teaches a resin molded article made of a predetermined resin material (see abstract and paragraph [0001] at page 1, see paragraphs [0017], [0020] at page 4 describing a resin molded product 1, Fig. 1 and the resin molded product or article 1 comprising material such as a polypropylene resin), the resin molded article (1, Fig. 1) comprising: a test piece (see sampling section 3, Fig. 1, see paragraph [0020] at page 4) capable of determining deterioration of the resin molded article (see paragraph [0020] at page 4 describing “Reference numeral 3 denotes a sampling section surrounded by a thin portion 2 serving as a sample for inspecting the degree of deterioration of the resin molded article 1”); and a holder portion (see thin portion 2, Fig. 1, see paragraph [0020] at page 4) in which the test piece is detachably installed (see page 5, lines 1 – 7 describing the thin portion 2 being formed so as to surround the sampling portion 3), wherein a degree of deterioration of the resin molded article (1) is determined using the test piece (3) removed from the holder portion (see page 6, lines 6 – 12 describing “the thin section 2 is cut, and the sample collection section 3 is collected”, “The sample collection unit 3 is used as a test pieces as it is, or after further cutting and processing into a test piece shape suitable for the subsequent inspection, an arbitrary inspection for examining the degree of deterioration of the resin molded product”, hence reading on the invention as claimed). Regarding Claim 2, Takagi teaches wherein the test piece (3) is made of a resin material having strength deterioration characteristics substantially equal to those of the resin molded article (see paragraph [0017], page 4 describing mold surrounding the sample collecting portion 3 corresponding to the sample for performing a characteristic inspection of the molded article, thus being of the same material, see also page 5, lines 10 – 32, hence reading on the invention as claimed). Regarding Claim 8, Takagi teaches wherein the test piece (3) in a state of being mounted on the holder portion (2) functions as a rib that reduces deformation of the resin molded article (see arrangement at Fig. 1, thus since holder portion at 2 is a thin portion, the test piece 3 placed at the holder portion 2 would reduce deformation of the resin molded article 1 as claimed) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 – 7, 9 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi . Regarding Claim 3, Takagi teaches wherein the resin molded article (1) includes a non-exterior surface that is not exposed in a state of being mounted on an apparatus (see page 6, lines 6 – 12 which describes the resin molded article 1 which can be an article used in many applications including a case of a refrigerator, thus depending on the use, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize the case holding vegetables of a refrigerator (see page 4, paragraph [0020]) as being the claimed “non-exterior surface that is not exposed in a state of being mounted on an apparatus” i.e., refrigerator, hence reading on the invention as claimed), and wherein the holder portion (2) and the test piece (3) are installed on the non-exterior surface (see modification above, hence reading on the invention as claimed). Regarding Claim 4, Takagi teaches wherein the resin molded article includes an exterior surface that is exposed in a state of being mounted on an apparatus (see page 6, lines 6 – 12 which describes the resin molded article 1 which can be an article used in many applications including cover of an air conditioner, thus being an exterior surface that is exposed as claimed), and wherein the holder portion (2) and the test piece (3) are installed on the exterior surface (see arrangement at Fig. 1), and information relating to the apparatus (i.e., cover of an air conditioner, see page 6, line 6) is displayed on the apparatus (see apparatus as being an air conditioner unit, hence it will be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize information relating to the apparatus (i.e., air conditioner) being displayed on the air conditioner). Even though Takagi teaches information relating to the apparatus being displayed on the apparatus, Takagi is silent regarding information relating to the apparatus being displayed on the at least one of the holder portion or the test piece. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display information on the at least one of the holder portion or the test piece, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Regarding Claim 5, Takagi teaches one test piece (3). Takagi is silent regarding a plurality of holder portions. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of holder portions, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977) . The modification allows for checking multiple locations of the device improving overall reliability of the system. Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, Takagi teaches test piece (3) and holder portion (2), wherein a number of the test piece is equal to a number of the holder portions (see test piece 3 and holder portion 2 being one of each, hence reading on the invention as claimed), each of the plurality of the test pieces being the test piece and each of the plurality of the holder portions being the holder portion (see arrangement at Fig. 1). Even though Takagi teaches the invention as described above, Takagi is silent regarding a plurality of test pieces and a plurality of holder portions. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of holder portions, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977) . The modification allows for checking multiple locations of the device improving overall reliability of the system. Regarding Claim 7, Takagi teaches wherein the holder portion (2) and the test piece (3) are provided in a space formed by the resin molded article and a counterpart component (see for instance formation of the resin molded product which includes use of the protrusion 6a, thus 6a can reasonably be considered as the counterpart component as claimed, see Figs. 2, 3 and page 5, lines 8 – 35). Even though Takagi teaches resin molded product 1 for applications of refrigerator and air conditioner systems as described at page 6, line 6, Takagi does not explicitly teach an arrangement including the counterpart component being assembled with the resin molded article in an apparatus in which the resin molded article is installed. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assemble a counterpart component with the resin as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Regarding Claim 9, Takagi teaches wherein a degree of deterioration of another resin molded article is also determined using the test piece removed from the holder portion, the another resin molded article being installed in an apparatus in which the resin molded article is installed (see claim 1 describing the invention of Takagi as used to determine the degree of deterioration of resin molded product and is not limited to a single use thus can be used on another article, thus even though Takagi does not explicitly state another resin molded article, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize use of the test piece in another resin molded article such as another casing for the refrigerator apparatus, depending on user’s desire, hence reading on the invention as claimed). Regarding claim 10, Takagi teaches wherein at least one of the holder portion or the test piece is provided with an indicator (the holder portion 2 is a thinned out portion as described above thus can be used as an indicator as claimed). Even though Takagi teaches indicator as described above, Takagi is silent regarding the indicator for specifying a number of reused times of the resin molded article. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique (such as markings on resin molded products to identify or indicate instances) to a known device (resin molded products) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). The modification allows for easily identifying reuse time of the molded article. Regarding Claim 11, Takagi teaches wherein presence or absence of deterioration of the resin molded article (1) is determined by presence or absence of breakage or plastic deformation upon an external force of a predetermined magnitude being applied to the test piece (3) removed from the holder portion (2) or upon the test piece removed from the holder portion being deformed by a predetermined amount (see page 6, lines 5 – 14 describing impact test being performed on the test piece in order to determine degree of deterioration of the molded article, thus it would be obvious to recognize either the test piece being broken or deformed depending on the force that is being applied by the impact tester, hence reading on the invention as claimed). Regarding Claim 12, Takagi teaches wherein presence or absence of deterioration of the resin molded article (1) is determined by magnitude of an external force upon the external force being applied to the test piece (3) removed from the holder portion (2) until the test piece is broken or plastically deformed (see page 6, lines 5 – 14 describing impact test being performed on the test piece in order to determine degree of deterioration of the molded article, thus it would be obvious to recognize either the test piece being broken or deformed depending on the force that is being applied by the impact tester, hence reading on the invention as claimed). Regarding Claim 13, Takagi teaches a method for determining deterioration of a resin molded article (see abstract and paragraph [0001] at page 1, see paragraphs [0017], [0020] at page 4 describing a resin molded product 1, Fig. 1 and the resin molded product or article 1 comprising material such as a polypropylene resin and evaluating degree of deterioration of the molded product as described at page 6, lines 5 - 14), the resin molded article (1) being made of a predetermined resin material (see paragraphs [0017], [0020] at page 4 describing a resin molded product 1, Fig. 1 and the resin molded product or article 1 comprising material such as a polypropylene resin), and the resin molded article (1) including a test piece (see sampling section 3, Fig. 1, see paragraph [0020] at page 4) capable of determining deterioration of the resin molded article (see paragraph [0020] at page 4 describing “Reference numeral 3 denotes a sampling section surrounded by a thin portion 2 serving as a sample for inspecting the degree of deterioration of the resin molded article 1”) and a holder portion (see thin portion 2, Fig. 1, see paragraph [0020] at page 4) in which the test piece is detachably installed (see page 5, lines 1 – 7 describing the thin portion 2 being formed so as to surround the sampling portion 3), the method comprising: deforming the test piece (3) removed from the holder (see page 6, lines 6 – 12 describing “the thin section 2 is cut, and the sample collection section 3 is collected”, “The sample collection unit 3 is used as a test pieces as it is, or after further cutting and processing into a test piece shape suitable for the subsequent inspection, an arbitrary inspection for examining the degree of deterioration of the resin molded product”, and further states impact test being performed on the test piece, thus it would be obvious to recognize deformation of the test piece to a certain degree depending on the force that is being applied by the impact tester, hence reading on the invention as claimed); and determining that the resin molded article is deteriorated upon the test piece being broken or being plastically deformed in the deforming (see page 6, lines 5 – 14 describing impact test being performed on the test piece in order to determine degree of deterioration of the molded article, thus it would be obvious to recognize either the test piece being broken or deformed depending on the force that is being applied by the impact tester, hence reading on the invention as claimed). Regarding Claim 14, Takagi teaches a method for determining deterioration of a resin molded article (see abstract and paragraph [0001] at page 1, see paragraphs [0017], [0020] at page 4 describing a resin molded product 1, Fig. 1 and the resin molded product or article 1 comprising material such as a polypropylene resin and evaluating degree of deterioration of the molded product as described at page 6, lines 5 - 14), the resin molded article (1) being made of a predetermined resin material (see paragraphs [0017], [0020] at page 4 describing a resin molded product 1, Fig. 1 and the resin molded product or article 1 comprising material such as a polypropylene resin), and the resin molded article (1) including a test piece (see sampling section 3, Fig. 1, see paragraph [0020] at page 4) capable of determining deterioration of the resin molded article (see paragraph [0020] at page 4 describing “Reference numeral 3 denotes a sampling section surrounded by a thin portion 2 serving as a sample for inspecting the degree of deterioration of the resin molded article 1”) and a holder portion (see thin portion 2, Fig. 1, see paragraph [0020] at page 4) in which the test piece is detachably installed (see page 5, lines 1 – 7 describing the thin portion 2 being formed so as to surround the sampling portion 3), the method comprising: breaking the test piece (3) removed from the holder portion (2) by applying an external force to the test piece (see page 6, lines 6 – 12 describing “the thin section 2 is cut, and the sample collection section 3 is collected”, “The sample collection unit 3 is used as a test pieces as it is, or after further cutting and processing into a test piece shape suitable for the subsequent inspection, an arbitrary inspection for examining the degree of deterioration of the resin molded product”, and further states impact test being performed on the test piece, thus it would be obvious to recognize breakage of the test piece depending on the force that is being applied by the impact tester, hence reading on the invention as claimed); and determining whether the resin molded article is deteriorated, based on a magnitude of the external force upon the test piece being broken in the breaking (see page 6, lines 5 – 14 describing impact test being performed on the test piece in order to determine degree of deterioration of the molded article, thus it would be obvious to recognize the test piece being broken based on the force that is being applied by the impact tester, hence reading on the invention as claimed) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 accompanying this office action which includes the following relevant art: Takatsuji, Hideyasu (WO 2021/106680 A1) teaches resin molded component and inspection method for resin molded component. Sahashi (U.S. 2001/0036666 A1) teaches a deterioration indicator for a resin mold member in a product includes a deteriorating state checking portion configured to allow evaluation of a deterioration state of the resin mold member. Tahara et al. (U.S. 5,741,446) teaches method of producing a molded article using a mold assembly with an insert block. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIT EYASSU whose telephone number is (571)270-1403. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM. 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, Laura E. Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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. /MARRIT EYASSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/741,810 Page 2 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/741,810 Page 3 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/741,810 Page 4 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/741,810 Page 5 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/741,810 Page 6 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/741,810 Page 7 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/741,810 Page 8 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/741,810 Page 9 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/741,810 Page 10 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/741,810 Page 11 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/741,810 Page 12 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/741,810 Page 13 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/741,810 Page 14 Art Unit: 2855
Prosecution Insights