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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over United States Patent No. 6338620 to Yamada in view of United States Patent Application No. 2007/0235890 Pryce Lewis et al (hereinafter Pryce).
In regards to Claim 1, Yamada teaches a system for tire vulcanization Fig. 3, 4 i.e., preheating a mold/tire, comprising: a chamber C1a/300 adapted and arranged to contain a first mold (left M, as it is also implicitly the mold itself) or a second mold (right M); a first mold support adapted (313 on the left) and arranged to support the first mold (left M), wherein the first mold support is translatable from a first position to a second position (as shown in Fig. 4), and wherein the second position is aligned with the deposition chamber (as it is shown on the right hand side); a second mold support adapted and arranged to support the second mold (as shown in Fig. 3), wherein the second mold support is translatable from a third position to the second position (as it is moved further to the right in Fig. 4, Col. 6 line 18-Col. 11 line 42; there being more than two mold assemblies/connection units, such that more than two and thus three stations and three positions are presented), thus a system for depositing coating onto surface of molds with a deposition chamber adapted and arranged to contain a first mold support and a second mold support that is adaptable and translatable but does not expressly teach a gas inlet port adapted and arranged to introduce a gaseous species into the deposition chamber; and a filament assembly, wherein the filament assembly comprises: a first frame portion; a second frame portion; a third frame portion positioned between and connecting the first frame portion and the second frame portion; and a plurality of filaments extending between the first frame portion and the second frame portion to form a non-planar filament array, wherein the filaments are connected to a DC voltage source and an electrical ground, wherein the first, second and third positions are horizontally spaced from each other.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to add a station and thus also a position, thus resulting in a third position, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.04 VI-B. The resulting apparatus would have first, second, and third positions horizontally spaced from each other.
Pryce teaches a system Fig. 3, 4A, 4B for depositing a coating on a surface of molds 10, comprising: a deposition chamber 22; a mold support 26 adapted and arranged to support the mold in the deposition chamber; a gas inlet port 28 adapted and arranged to introduce a gaseous species into the deposition chamber; and a filament assembly Fig. 4A, 4B, wherein the filament assembly comprises: a first frame portion 42A; a second frame portion 42B; a third frame portion 49 positioned between and connecting the first frame portion and the second frame portion through pins 44; and a plurality of filaments 32a, 32b extending between the first frame portion and the second frame portion to form a non-planar filament array (as it is in the shape of a circle), wherein the filament array, the filament assembly, and the gas inlet are positioned so to cause the gaseous species to flow in a direction substantially parallel to each of the plurality of filaments in the filament array (28 flows over the substrate/hold surfaces and then out of the deposition chamber through a gas outlet port 23 positioned between the mold and the deposition chamber, as it is on the bottom inner surface of the deposition chamber below the mold support 26 [0037-0039, 0034-0047]).
Pryce further teaches the filaments are connected to a DC voltage source and an electrical ground (Col. 6 lines 23-31).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Yamada, to substitute the art analogous mold treatment chamber with the mold chamber of Pryce. Specifically, because Yamada teachings mold treatment systems with chambers and a movement mechanism and Pryce teaches a deposition chamber for a mold, It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to place the mold treatment system of Pryce for the predictable result of deposition on the mold as a desired processing in Dubos. See MPEP 2143, Motivations A-E. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. The resulting apparatus would have a depositing a coating in the station or moveable chamber systems as claimed.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 2, Yamada in view of Pryce teaches one of the positions is suitable for preparing the first mold to be coated, as the combined teachings is of a processing system with different positions with the coating chambers of Pryce, as per the rejection above.
In regards to Claim 3, Yamada in view of Pryce teaches one of the positions is suitable for depositing a coating onto a surface of the first mold, as the combined teachings is of a processing system with different positions with the coating chambers of Pryce, as per the rejection above.
In regards to Claim 4, Yamada in view of Pryce teaches one of the positions is suitable for removing the first mold after deposition of a coating thereon, as per the teachings of loading and unloading in the same position due to a loader and unload in in Yamada (Col. 2 lines 40-60).
In regards to Claim 5, Yamada in view of Pryce teaches the position suitable for removing the first mold after deposition of the coating thereon is also suitable for preparing the first mold to be coated, as per the teachings of loading and unloading in the same position due to a loader and unload in in Yamada (Col. 2 lines 40-60).
In regards to Claim 6, Yamada in view of Pryce teaches the system allows an operator to simultaneously prepare a first mold for coating and deposit a coating on a surface of a second mold, as the system is for stations of processing/coating, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 7, Yamada teaches the deposition chamber is capable of being positioned above the second position, as the lids are raised above the second position, as shown in Fig. 1-3.
In regards to Claim 8, Yamada teaches the deposition chamber is adapted to be translated vertically, as shown in Fig. 1-3.
In regards to Claim 9, Yamada teaches the first mold is a tire mold, as per the rejection of Claim 1.
In regards to Claim 10, Yamada in view of Pryce teaches the first mold comprises one or more vent ports, in the form of the exhaust port 23 of Pryce, as shown in Fig. 3 of Pryce.
In regards to Claim 11, Yamada in view of Pryce teaches the vent ports are not substantially occluded during deposition of the coating, as shown in Fig. 3 of Pryce, and wherein the coating is a conformal coating, as it coats the surfaces of the substrate/tire.
In regards to Claim 12, Yamada in view of Pryce teaches the deposition chamber is adapted and arranged to be held at a pressure below atmospheric pressure.
In regards to Claim 13, Yamada in view of Pryce teaches at least one dimension of the filament assembly may be adjusted by an operator, as it is adjusted by the spring which is implicitly controlled by an operator (Claim 7 of Pryce).
In regards to Claim 14, Yamada in view of Pryce teaches the first mold support is capable of heating the first mold, as per the filament heating of Pryce, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 15, Yamada in view of Pryce teach the first mold support is capable of cooling the first mold, as when the system is open it can be cooled by exposure to the exterior environment.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Yamada in view of Pryce is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Yamada in view of Pryce would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to cool the first mold, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Yamada in view of Pryce and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 16, Yamada in view of Pryce teaches the first mold support is adapted and arranged to be capable of forming a gas-tight seal with the deposition chamber, as it forms a vacuum chamber in the teachings of Pryce and the rejection of Claim 1.
In regards to Claim 17, Yamada in view of Pryce teaches the deposition chamber is adapted and arranged to be positioned around the first mold, as per the rejection Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 18, Yamada in view of Pryce teaches the coatings comprise a polymer, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above, and in the teachings of Pryce of a polymeric coatings, Col. 1 line 34-42.
In regards to Claim 19, Yamada in view of Pryce do not expressly teach the polymer comprises one or more fluorine-containing monomers, but Pryce does expressly teach of PTFE (Col. lines 5-22).
However, it has been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Rishoi, 94 USPQ 71; In re Young, 25 USPQ 69; In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348; and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Thus the type of polymer is not considered a positive limitation and the apparatus of Yamada in view of Pryce would be capable of processing fluorine polymers, based on user selection of the type of Yamada in view of Pryce, there being no structural limitations in the claims to prevent this otherwise.
In regards to Claim 20, Yamada in view of Pryce teaches depositing the coatings comprises performing one or more of a CVD process (Pryce Col. 5 lines 5-17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 6716012 to Yovichin et al teaches mold for track coating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights