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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-6 are the subject of this FINAL Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 - Maintained
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) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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; or
(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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ROMANOV (US20210206037).
As to claim 1, ROMANOV teaches a method for producing a particle foam part from foam particles for sports apparel, sports equipment or a ball using electromagnetic waves, the method comprising the steps of (“A method for producing a particle foam part, the method comprising”; claim 1)
filling a molding space (“heating foam particles, which are formed from an expandable polymer material, in a molding chamber of a molding tool, welding the foam particles into the particle foam part, the foam particles being heated by electromagnetic radiation”; claim 1; paras. 0061-62 & 0071-72, describing the filling of the mold),
heating the foam particles with electromagnetic waves to weld them (“heating foam particles, which are formed from an expandable polymer material, in a molding chamber of a molding tool, welding the foam particles into the particle foam part, the foam particles being heated by electromagnetic radiation”; claim 1), and
demolding (“demolding”; para. 0071),
wherein a parameter characteristic of the absorption of the electromagnetic waves is monitored during the heating of the foam particles, and if this parameter changes by a predetermined amount, the heating of the foam particles is ended (para. 0051, describing controlling supply of heat based on measured power or voltage changes at the capacitor (“it is advisable to control the supply of heat by means of electromagnetic radiation. This control can be carried out, for example, based on a temperature recorded in the molding chamber by means of a temperature sensor. This temperature sensor is preferably a fiber-optic temperature sensor. However, the heat supplied can also be measured based on the electrical power output or voltage changes at the capacitor”)). Further to control (including turning on and off) of the electrical power of the RF heater, the Abstract, paragraphs 0006, 0014-15, 0020, 0036, 0045, 0051 and 0089-90, 0139 discuss controlling the power or voltage supplied to the RF heater based on measured voltage or power at the capacitor plates of the RF heater to prevent overheating. From this discussion of “controlling” the heat of the RF heater, it is immediately clear that shutting off the heat is taught, along with reducing power, reducing voltage, increasing power or increasing voltage. Thus, ROMANOV clearly states that “the heat supplied can also be measured based on the electrical power output or voltage changes at the capacitor” in order to “control the supply of heat by means of electromagnetic radiation” which includes stopping or ending the heating when the heat is too high.
As to claim 2, ROMANOV teaches the electromagnetic waves are generated by means of a capacitor in which the molding space is located, wherein:
the electromagnetic waves are applied to the capacitor with a predetermined voltage amplitude, and the power introduced into the molding space or the first or second derivative thereof over time is measured as a characteristic parameter (para. 0051).
As to claim 3, ROMANOV teaches the electromagnetic waves are generated by means of a capacitor in which the molding space is located, wherein:
the electromagnetic waves are applied to the capacitor with a predetermined power, and the voltage dropped across the capacitor or the first or second derivative thereof over time is measured as a characteristic parameter (para. 0051).
As to claim 5, ROMANOV teaches after heating and before demolding, the particle foam part is cooled in the molding space (paras. 0044-45 & 0068-69).
As to claim 5, ROMANOV teaches RF radiation is used as electromagnetic waves (Abstract, Claim 24, paras. 0014-25, 0049-50 & 0084).
As to claim 6, ROMANOV teaches the electromagnetic waves have a frequency range of 30 kHz to 300 MHz.(paras. 0016-17).
Response to Arguments
The rejections are maintained because Applicants’ characterization of the claims versus the prior art is not accurate. Applicants’ argument rests on the assertion that the claims require to directly measure, in foam particles being heated in a mold, EM wave absorption. However, this is not what the claims require. Instead, the claims broadly state “wherein a parameter characteristic of the absorption of the electromagnetic waves by the foam particles is monitored during the heating of the foam particles.” A “parameter characteristic of” broadly encompasses any measure of absorption of the electromagnetic waves by the foam particles, direct or indirect. Thus, measuring the temperature using a temperature sensor measures a “parameter characteristic of the absorption of the electromagnetic waves by the foam particles.”
The Examiner appreciates Applicants’ description of what the specification explains is the advantage disclosed therein. That is,
‘with the melting of a material of foam particles to be welded, the absorption capacity of the material improves abruptly. The supply of heat therefore should be interrupted during welding with electromagnetic waves when the material to be welded has melted. Further heating is not necessary, but rather harmful, since the material is then heated to relatively high temperatures and can burn.’ See current application, paragraphs [0038], [0040]. Because the absorption properties of the foam particles change rapidly upon melting, monitoring the change of the absorption properties is what can indicate that the particles have melted and further heating would be detrimental. The heating step being terminated specifically at a predetermined change in absorption property corresponding to the melting of the foam particles addresses overheating and burning issues in the prior technology of welding particles by electromagnetic waves. See current application, [0039]
(Reply, pgs. 7-9). The only problem is that the claims do not require this. Once the claims require this, then the Examiner will admit that ROMANOV does not directly measure EM wave absorption in the foam particles while in the mold.
However, one note here: the specification describes measuring this property by “change in the capacitance of the tool capacitor 15, 16” (para. 0129), which seems to be what is measured in ROMANOV as well (para. 0051- “the heat supplied can also be measured based on the electrical power output or voltage changes at the capacitor [15/16]”). In fact, the basic structure of device 1 for producing a particle foam part comprises a material container 2, a molding tool 3 and a line 4 leading from the material container 2 to the molding tool 3 is the same between ROMANOV (right) and here (left):
PNG
media_image1.png
540
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
538
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The only difference between them can be found in Figure 4, here:
PNG
media_image3.png
248
424
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As explained in the specification,
FIG. 4 shows a set-up for controlling the electrical power supplied to the tool capacitor 15, 16 in a schematically simplified circuit diagram. The generator 18 is connected to the tool capacitor 15, 16. A measuring capacitor 53, the electrical capacitance of which is a fraction of the electrical capacitance of the tool capacitor 15, 16, is connected in parallel with the tool capacitor 15, 16. The measuring capacitor 53 is connected to a voltage measuring device (voltmeter) 55 via a coaxial line 54. In some embodiments, a diode 56 is connected in parallel with the measuring capacitor 53. The coaxial line 54 is connected in series with an inductance 58, which serves for filtering high-frequency signals
(para. 0125). This specific setup is critical to directly measuring foam EM wave absorption in the mold:
As has been explained at the outset, the absorption capacity of the material to be welded present in the tool capacitor 15, 16 changes depending on the temperature, a particularly strong change in the absorption capacity of the electromagnetic waves occurring in certain processing situations. In the equivalent circuit diagram shown in FIG. 4 , the change in the absorption capacity of the electromagnetic waves can also be considered as a change in the capacitance of the tool capacitor 15, 16. This capacitance changed at the tool capacitor 15, 16 leads, depending on whether the control device 57 is designed to keep the electrical power output or the voltage (=voltage amplitude) applied to the tool capacitor 15, 16 constant, either to a change in the voltage (=voltage amplitude) or to a change in the electrical power output.
In principle, it is simpler to output a predetermined constant electrical power by means of the generator 18, because then the tuning of the tool oscillating circuit 50 to the generator oscillating circuit 52 may be kept constant, so that a constant electrical power is output by the generator 18. In this embodiments, the measuring voltage measured by the voltage measuring device 55 can represent a parameter characteristic of the absorption capacity of the material to be welded, which parameter is monitored by the control device 57. If the measuring voltage changes by a predetermined threshold value within a predetermined time interval, this is established by the control device 57 and is assessed as a trigger point for ending the heating process. The heating process may be ended directly with establishment of the trigger point or also delayed by a predetermined period of time. The heating process is ended by switching off the supply of electrical power from the generator 18, wherein the switching off of the generator 18 is controlled by the control device 57
(paras. 0129-30). It is also critical to distinguishing over the prior art. Thus, Applicants should amend the claims to recite this setup.
Prior Art
The following prior art also teaches RF heating of foam mold products: WO2022229030; US20210206036; US20140243442; US20180154598 (“Further, a voltmeter may be used for measuring the voltage of the capacitor. This may be helpful for determining the thermal output introduced into the particles 120 because the power is proportional to the square of the voltage”; para. 0148).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Heather Calamita can be reached at 571-272-2876. 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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights