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
Claims 1-2 and 4-18 are pending. Claim 3 is canceled. Claims 17 and 18 are new.
In view of the amendment, filed 10/21/2025, the following objections and rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 5/21/2025:
Claim objections
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), other than any maintained below
Prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are updated in view of claim amendments. New grounds of rejection (claim 15, new claims 17-18) are necessitated by claim amendments.
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(s) 12 is/are 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.
Claim 12 recites “at least a part of a surface structure of the region forming the cavity is formed separately…” Claim 1 introduced “at least one part of a surface structure of the at least one region” in line 9, and the reference in claim 12 is unclear as to whether “at least a part” is intended to refer to the “at least one part,” as well as whether “of a surface structure of the region” refers to the “surface structure of the at least one region” introduced in claim 1 or if either/both of these limitations are intended to encompass new/additional elements. For further examination and the application of prior art, any part of any surface structure of the region will be considered to meet the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariyoshi, JP 2014037099 A, in view of Rynerson et al., US 20070007699 A1, each provided in Applicant’s IDS. The previously provided translation of Ariyoshi is referenced below.
Regarding claim 1, Ariyoshi discloses a method for producing a molded product (molding a foam molded article, [0001], [0015], such as a cold storage container body 10, [0022], [0031]) comprised of foamable plastics particles (made of foamed synthetic resin, [0031], particularly expandable synthetic resin particles, [0017]) using a foaming tool for processing the foamable plastics particles (using a mold apparatus 1 composed of a pair of molds 1A and 1B, including molding dies 2 and 3, respectively, for molding the foam molded article, [0015]-[0016], Figs. 1a-1b), wherein the foaming tool comprises at least one region (molding die 2, Figs. 1a-1b, [0016]-[0017]) that forms at least one portion of a cavity (female molding die 2 forms corresponding portion of molding space S, Fig. 1a-1b, [0017], which is a cavity), the method for forming the molded product comprising:
Introducing plastics particles into the cavity (the molding space S is filled with the expandable synthetic resin particles, [0001], [0017]); and
Processing the plastics particles into the molded product (the foamable/expandable particles, [0006], [0017], are heated and molded, [0006], by a supply of steam, [0018]-[0021], so as to obtain the foamed molded body, [0006], [0022], [0031]) by expanding the plastics particles (the foamable particles are foamed, [0006], [0022], [0031], where foaming requires expansion of the expandable material to the foamed material) such that the plastics particles expand in the cavity (the foamable particles being heated and molded in the molding space S, or cavity, so as to obtain the foamed molded body, [0006], where the foaming in the cavity requires expansion of the foamable/expandable material to the foamed material) thereby forming the molded product (forming the foamed molded body, [0006], [0022], [0031]),
Wherein a surface structure (plate 11 having a forming portion 11A, Fig. 1b, [0025]-[0026]) of the at least one region (of the molding die 2, Fig. 1b) forming a surface of the at least one portion of the cavity (forming a surface of the at least one portion of the molding space S defined by the molding die 2, Fig. 1b) includes multiple elevations and depressions (protrusions and recesses across forming portions 11A, see Fig. 1b below) in the surface of the foaming tool (in the surface of the plate 11 of the mold apparatus, Figs. 1b-2, [0026]-[0030]).
PNG
media_image1.png
779
1081
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ariyoshi discloses the surface structure of the at least one region forming a surface of the at least one portion of the cavity is made from metal (metal plate, [0025]) but is silent as to a particular method of production of the surface structure of the foaming tool. Ariyoshi does not disclose at least one part of the surface structure is produced by an additive method.
In the analogous art, Rynerson discloses a method for making a foaming mold for producing a foam molded product (making an article for producing EPS molded foamed articles, [0016], [0023], “EPS” being expanded polystyrene, [0002]). Rynerson teaches producing the foam mold by an additive method (by a layered 3DP method, [0026]-[0027], which is an additive layer-by-layer printing process), which facilitates the incorporation of a plurality of small-width fluid conduction vents ([0026], [0038]-[0039]) as well as the formation of a complex mold surface ([0042]). Rynerson describes the additively produced mold structure being made from a metal powder (stainless steel, [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ariyoshi to specify that the molds, including at least one part of the surface structure of the at least one region forming the surface of the at least one portion of the cavity, were produced by an additive method, since an additive method would have facilitated the incorporation of any number, placement, and geometry of the fluid-conduction vents (also necessary for supplying steam in Ariyoshi, [0020]-[0021]) as well as facilitated the formation of the complex mold surface for the patterning of foam molded parts, as taught by Rynerson.
Ariyoshi discloses that the foamed synthetic resin to be used is not particularly limited but can be, e.g., foamed polystyrene, foamed polyethylene, and foamed polypropylene ([0031]). Ariyoshi is silent as to the foamable plastics particles being pre-foamed.
Rynerson further discloses that, in known foaming methods, partially-expanded (i.e., pre-foamed) EPS beads are charged into closed molds and heated, causing a blowing agent to further expand the beads, which then become fused together in the shape defined by the mold ([0024]).
In the case it was not already present, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify in the foaming method of Ariyoshi that the foamable plastics particles were pre-foamed, for example, partially-expanded and provided with a blowing agent, in order to specify a suitable condition for the provided foamable plastic materials in line with the material type disclosed by Ariyoshi, and in order to ensure the foamable plastics particles could be expanded in the presence of heat as intended and molded into the shape defined by the mold chamber with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Rynerson.
Ariyoshi discloses a particular surface structure of the region of the cavity (Figs. 1b-2 showing particular surface structure of the plate 11 which is part of molding die 2) is imprinted on the molded product (the mold is used for imprinting a corresponding shape into the molded product, see molded container body 10, Fig. 3, [0031]). Regarding the imprinting achieving the intended result of concealing air pockets or grain boundaries between the foamable plastics particles, the present specification describes that the effect is achieved by imprinting a particular surface structure, where the surface structure can purposely differ from a smooth surface and, in particular, can be provided with additively produced elevations and/or depressions (p. 4, first full paragraph). In this case, the combination as set forth above features the complex surface structure comprised of elevations and depressions (Ariyoshi, Fig. 1b), and the surface structure is additively produced (per combination with Rynerson). As such, since the prior art teaches the imprinting by the additively produced elevations and depressions provided in the surface structure, in line with the present disclosure, the claimed result is considered to be met by the combination.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 1, and Ariyoshi discloses for achieving a specific surface quality of the molded product a particular surface structure of the region of the cavity (Figs. 1b-2 showing particular surface structure of the plate 11 which is part of molding die 2) is imprinted on the product (Fig. 3 showing corresponding imprinted structure on the molded container body 10, [0031]).
PNG
media_image2.png
964
1833
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 1, and Ariyoshi discloses the at least one part comprises a surface structure (e.g., portion 13 of forming portions 11A of the plate 11, Figs. 1b-2, see above) such that the molded product is provided with at least one item of information during production (producing corresponding characters on the molded container body 10, Fig. 3, [0028]). Note that the limitation references “the at least one part…” where the at least one part has been defined as at least one part of the previously introduced surface structure; as such, this limitation reads in full as “the at least one part of the surface structure comprises a surface structure…” where “a surface structure” is being interpreted to include any subset of the previously introduced surface structure.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the at least one item of information comprises a motif or lettering (“C” and adjacent characters shown as circles, Fig. 3, [0028]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the at least one item of information relates to the production of the molded product (the at least one item of information provided to the molded product relates to the production of the molded product at least in that it mirrors the mold used in the production of the part, Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the at least one item of information relates to a sign of a manufacturer (the at least one item of information relates to a sign of the manufacturer at least in that it is a series of characters, or a sign, that is formed into the part by the manufacturer of the part during the molding, [0028]). Note also that Ariyoshi describes the predetermined information formed into the molded body can be a name of the organization that owns the foam molded product, [0008]-[0009]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 1, and the combination further discloses the at least one part of the surface structure is produced by binder jetting (Rynerson: the 3DP process akin to ink-jet printing but instead printing a binder on the powder layers, [0027], [0042]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 1, and Ariyoshi discloses the at least one part is designed as an insert (the plate 11 is designed to be inserted into a corresponding recess 2d, [0025], Fig. 1b) which is or can be placed into a corresponding recess (into recess 2d, Fig. 1b, [0025]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 1, and Ariyoshi discloses the at least one part of the surface structure is produced directly together with a production of the foaming tool (the at least one part of the surface structure is a component of the mold 1 or foaming tool itself so it is produced at least directly together with the production of the foaming tool).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 1, and Ariyoshi discloses at least a part of a surface structure of the region forming the cavity is formed separately from a remainder of the foaming tool and can be or is connected to the region (the holding plate 11 is a distinct structure from the remainder of the mold apparatus and is connected to the molding die 2 via screws 12, Fig. 1b, [0026]; as it is a separate piece from the remainder of the mold apparatus it is also formed separately from the remainder of the mold apparatus).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 1, and Ariyoshi discloses the at least one part of the surface structure is applied subsequently to an existing component, or an existing surface structure is supplemented by the at least one part (the holding plate 11 is a distinct structure from the remainder of the mold apparatus which is connected to the recess of the molding die 2 via screws 12, Fig. 1b, [0026], such that the at least one part of the surface structure, the holding plate 11, is applied subsequently to an existing component, the mating recess of the molding die 2).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 1, and the combination discloses at least one item of information relating to the at least one part of the surface structure can be generated by computer-aided design (CAD) or by at least one machine parameter (Rynerson: the three-dimensional electronic representation of the article being created using CAD to generate the STL file for generating two-dimensional slices for performing the layered manufacturing process, [0029], the article is subsequently printed using a 3D printing machine, [0042]). Note that “can be generated” does not require the actual generation of information.
Regarding claim 16, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 1, and Ariyoshi discloses the at least one part comprises at least two sub-regions (e.g., sub-regions 13, 14, 15, Figs. 1b-2) having different surface structures (Figs. 1b-2).
Regarding claim 17, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 1, and Ariyoshi discloses the at least one part of the surface structure is a purposely unsmooth surface (Fig. 1b, molding surface is unsmooth as it is comprised of elevations and depressions forming features/characters intended to be molded into the foamed product).
Regarding claim 18, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 1, and Ariyoshi discloses the multiple elevations and depressions comprises a periodic arrangement of elevations and depressions (Fig. 1b cross section shows periodic arrangement of elevations/depressions, in line with instant Figs. 1-4).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariyoshi, JP 2014037099 A, in view of Rynerson et al., US 20070007699 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, with evidentiary support from Midlands 3D, Glossary of 3D Printing Terms (of record).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 1, and the combination further discloses the at least one part of the surface structure is produced from a construction material (Rynerson: powder, [0027], [0042]).
In the applied example, Rynerson teaches forming the mold structure via a powder-based 3DP process directed to binder jetting ([0027], [0042]). Therefore, the combination as set forth does not address that the construction material can be solidified by an energy beam, and the production is by successive layered selective exposure, and associated successive layered selective solidification of construction material layers.
Rynerson further discloses that another preferred alternative additive process for forming the article is a layered manufacturing process of selective laser sintering, or SLS ([0009]). By definition, a layered manufacturing process of SLS involves the solidification (selective sintering) of a powder construction material by an energy beam (laser), by successive layered selective exposure and associated successive layered selective solidification of construction material layers (layered manufacturing process; see also selectively fusing for layer-by-layer formation from powdered material, from Glossary of 3D Printing Terms, p. 4 definition of SLS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the additive process of SLS for the additive process of binder jet 3DP as a simple substitution of one known powder-based, additive, layered generation process for another yielding predictable results of producing the 3D mold structure. MPEP 2143 (I)(B). Rynerson teaches each technique is a preferred method suitable for additively generating the mold structure. The substitution would result in the production being from a powder construction material that can be solidified by an energy beam, by successive layered selective exposure, and associated successive layered selective solidification of construction material layers.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariyoshi, JP 2014037099 A, in view of Rynerson et al., US 20070007699 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Narayanaswamy, US 20170043518 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding claim 15, modified Ariyoshi discloses the method according to claim 1. The combination did not address the at least one part of the surface structure being finished.
Rynerson further discloses performing a small amount of finishing to produce a desired surface finish to the printed mold surface ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the combination to include that the at least one part of the surface structure which has been produced by the additive method is finished by at least one method in order to produce a desired surface finish to the printed mold surface, as taught by Rynerson.
The combination is silent as to a particular finishing method.
In the analogous art, Narayanaswamy discloses forming portions of a mold through additive manufacturing ([0032], e.g., powder bed fusion, [0036], Fig. 5) and subsequently treating the additively formed surface to reduce its roughness ([0032], [0049], Fig. 5). Narayanaswamy teaches the use of finishing techniques such as an abrasive method, laser ablation, and chemical smoothing so as to reduce the average surface roughness to a specific value (machining, laser or diamond polishing, chemical treatment, etc. for reducing surface roughness, [0032], [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify for the finishing method using a known finishing technique such as an abrasive method, laser ablation, and/or a chemical or electrical smoothing method in order to achieve a desired surface roughness value of the additively manufactured mold surface, as taught by Narayanaswamy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding amended claim 1, Applicant argues (pp. 12-17) that Ariyoshi in view of Rynerson fails to reasonably teach or suggest “a particular surface structure of the region of the cavity is imprinted on the molded product for concealing air pockets or grain boundaries between the foamable plastics particles.” Applicant submits (p. 13) that Ariyoshi merely teaches elevations and depressions for imprinting letters/manufacturer logos on the product that are sized to be legible. Applicant argues (pp. 13-14) that the result of a concealment of air pockets and grain boundaries would only be possible in Ariyoshi if the size of the elevations and depressions used for imprinting the letters/logos matches the size of the air pockets/grain boundaries of the foamed particles but that such a scale would be too small for the letters/logos to be legible. Applicant argues that neither Ariyoshi nor Rynerson teach an appropriate size scale for concealing air pockets and grain boundaries.
These arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive. The claim requires that a particular surface structure is imprinted on the molded product, a step that is performed by Ariyoshi, with the intended result being for concealing air pockets or grain boundaries. The specification describes that this is done by imprinting a surface structure that is not smooth and that is formed of additively produced elevations and/or depressions (filed specification, p. 4). The specification provides no disclosure of a particular size or scale requirement with respect to concealing air pockets or grain boundaries. The rejection sets forth that Ariyoshi discloses a particular surface structure of the region of the cavity (Figs. 1b-2 showing particular surface structure of the plate 11 which is part of molding die 2) is imprinted on the product (the mold is used for imprinting a corresponding shape into the molded product, see molded container body 10, Fig. 3, [0031]), and the combination as set forth features the complex surface structure comprised of additively produced elevations and depressions. As such, since the prior art teaches the imprinting by the additively produced elevations and depressions forming the surface that differs from a smooth surface, in line with the present disclosure, the claimed result is considered to be met by the combination.
The examiner notes that MPEP 2111.04 (I) sets forth, regarding whereby/wherein clauses, that such clauses in a method claim are not given weight when they simply express the intended result of a process step positively recited. Still, in this case, the examiner has considered the limitation in view of the present specification and finds the prior art as discussed above to reasonably correspond to the disclosed and claimed subject matter.
Regarding applicant’s argument that elevations/depressions that form letters or a logo are too large to achieve the claimed effect, this argument is also not found persuasive. As noted above, the disclosure provides no size requirements for achieving the intended result. The additively produced elevations/depressions of the present application are also disclosed as forming symbols related to the manufacturing that are intended to be read (p. 8, first full paragraph describes a motif, lettering, a sign of the manufacturer, etc.; claims 4-5 recite that the at least one part, i.e., the additively produced part according to claim 1, is provided with an item of information comprising a motif or lettering).
Applicant’s arguments/photographs (pp. 14-17) related to a size of air pockets and grain boundaries have been considered but are not found persuasive. The argument relies on the surface structure of the tool or product having a specific size scale but neither the claims nor the specification provide any detail as to a particular size or scale requirement. As set forth above, the specification describes only that additively produced elevations and/or depressions that depart from a smooth surface achieve the intended result in a foamed product, and the mold surface set forth for the combination has substantially the same features applied in the same foaming method and thus would have been reasonably expected to achieve the claimed result.
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 JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754