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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-25, 28-32, and 34-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,645,992. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims encompass the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,645,992.
Claim 21-23 and 27-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of copending Application No. 15/829,230 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are encompassed by the claims of copending Application No. 15/829,230 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 24, 27, 28, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by COLES et al. (2014/0243442).
Regarding claims 21, 24, and 34, COLES et al. discloses a method for the manufacture of a plastic component, the method comprising:
a) loading a mold (30) [0180] with a material which comprises particles of an expanded material (34) [0183]; and
b) fusing the surfaces of the particles by supplying energy [0183],
c) wherein the energy is supplied in the form of at least one electromagnetic field such as microwave [0183] wherein
d) the particles further comprise an energy absorbing material (liquid heat transfer agent such as water) which absorbs the energy supplied by the at least one electromagnetic field [0182]; the energy absorbing material or heat transfer fluid is either placed into the mold at the same time as the particles; and or pre-mixed with the particles before being placed in or injected into the mold [0041].
COLES et al. discloses the quantity of water (the energy absorbing material) used in molding was varied from a minimum of about 12 mL to a maximum of 30 mL- which for 52 g of beads in a 1.5 litre mold cavity equates to about 8 ml to 20 ml of water per unit volume of tool cavity [0416]. Therefore, the average amount of energy absorbing material per particle varies within the mold as claimed.
Regarding claim 27, COLES et al. discloses 300 MHz (claim 3).
Regarding claim 28, COLES et al. discloses said energy absorbing material is electrically conductive [0039]-[0040].
Claim(s) 21 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ZIEGLER et al. (WO 2001064414-machine translation).
Regarding claim 21, ZIEGLER et al. discloses a method for the manufacture of a plastic component, the method comprising:
a) loading a mold with a material which comprises particles of an expanded material (claims 5-6); and
b) fusing the surfaces of the particles by supplying energy (claim 22),
c) wherein the energy is supplied in the form of at least one electromagnetic field such as microwave (claim 1) wherein
d) the particles further comprise an energy absorbing material (liquid medium) which absorbs the energy supplied by the at least one electromagnetic field (claim 1);
ZIEGLER et al. discloses in order to achieve complete filling of the cavity volume of the bulk of the polymer particles with the radiation-absorbing medium, one embodiment of the method provides that the particles are fed into the molding space and the liquid medium is fed into the molding space while displacing the air in the bulk of the particles becomes. The liquid medium is preferably fed into the molding space which receives the particles in an increasing manner in order to ensure perfect ventilation of the molding space and thus for a complete filling of the cavity volume of the particle bed with the liquid medium. In this case, the particle bed can be mechanically compressed in the molding space and the liquid medium can then be fed in. Of course, the particles can also be compressed by pressurizing the mold space with the liquid medium. If expandable polymer particles such as EPE, EPP, EPS, EPET or the like are used, which expand during the thermal bonding by means of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, so that the void volume of the particle bed is reduced during the irradiation, the void volume can initially only partially filled with the radiation absorbing medium, whereby it must be ensured that the medium fills up the void volume of the bed essentially completely after expanding the polymer particles and displacing the residual air in order to ensure a perfect fusion of the particles. Therefore, the average amount of energy absorbing material per particle varies within the mold as claimed.
Regarding claim 26, ZIEGLER et al. discloses radiation-absorbing medium such as metal powder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues prio art references do not disclose “wherein
the average amount of energy absorbing material per particle varies within the mold”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, COLE discloses the energy absorbing material or heat transfer fluid is either placed into the mold at the same time as the particles; and or pre-mixed with the particles before being placed in or injected into the mold [0041].
COLES et al. discloses the quantity of water (the energy absorbing material) used in molding was varied from a minimum of about 12 mL to a maximum of 30 mL- which for 52 g of beads in a 1.5 litre mold cavity equates to about 8 ml to 20 ml of water per unit volume of tool cavity [0416]. Therefore, the average amount of energy absorbing material per particle varies within the mold as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 STELLA KIM YI whose telephone number is (571)270-5123. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
STELLA YI
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/STELLA K YI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights