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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/02/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. Claims 21-42 were previously canceled. No new claims have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schroth (US 7,112,249 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Schroth teaches a blow forming tooling assembly (tooling combination 10) comprising: a first tooling portion defining a gas intake orifice and a pressure chamber (lower tool 16 and binder ring 18 cooperate to define an air chamber behind surface 40 of the sheet material 20; air under controlled pressure is admitted through a port through binder ring 18); a second tooling portion defining a part forming cavity (upper tool 12 with a concave cavity surface 14); a membrane disposed between the first tooling portion and the second tooling portion (sheet material 20); and a pressurized gas source operatively coupled to the pressure chamber by the gas intake orifice (air under controlled pressure is admitted from a compressed air source) (Fig 1 and col 4, ln 27 to col 6, ln 47).
Regarding claims 2-3, as applied to claim 1, Schroth teaches a blow forming tooling assembly further comprising a heating element (tool heating system) and further comprising a cooling element (cooling water supply) (col 6, ln 29-47).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, Schroth teaches a blow forming tooling assembly wherein the first tooling portion and the second tooling portion are coupled to each other (binder ring 18 is raised to engage edges 22 of sheet material 20 at binder ring upper surfaces 24 and to clamp sheet material edges 22 against edge surfaces 26 of upper tool 12 (col 4, lns 56-64).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, Schroth teaches a blow forming tooling assembly wherein a portion of the membrane is at least partially disposed within the part forming cavity (Fig 1 and col 4, ln 27 to col 6, ln 47).
Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein said portion is preformed to conform to a shape of the part forming cavity” is a recitation of intended result. However, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and thus, an apparatus 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. MPEP 2114(II). Here, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure (ZZZ) of the claimed apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroth (US 7,112,249 B2), as applied to claim 4, and in view of Tauzer (US 9,433,992 B1).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 4, Schroth does not explicitly disclose a blow forming tooling assembly wherein the first tooling portion and the second tooling portion are coupled to each other using at least one fastener.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (coupling via fasteners; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Tauzer discloses the known technique wherein first and second die portions 141, 142 are joined together with any suitable fasteners 290, 292 such as bolts and threaded holes/nuts, clamps, straps or any other suitable fasteners configured to hold the die sections 141, 142 together during a forming process (the first tooling portion and the second tooling portion are coupled to each other using at least one fastener) (col 4, ln 63 - col 5, ln 22)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the assembly disclosed in Schroth by applying the known technique of the first tooling portion and the second tooling portion are coupled to each other using at least one fastener disclosed in Tauzer to the assembly comprising the first tooling portion and the second tooling portion disclosed in Schroth with predictable results and resulting in an improved assembly. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroth (US 7,112,249 B2), as applied to claim 1, and in view of Huey (US 2015/0334479 A1).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1, Schroth does not explicitly disclose a blow forming tooling assembly wherein the membrane is a polymer pad.
However, in the same field of endeavor, blow forming, Huey teaches that the pliable material can be a thermoset plastic having sufficient durability to maintain its shape and avoid puncture during the blow forming operation, wherein some appropriate materials for use as the pliable material can include high-density polyethylene (wherein the membrane is a polymer) (¶0018).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to substitute the material taught by Schroth with the pliable high-density polyethylene material taught by Huey since the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07.
Although Schroth in view of Huey do not specify a polymer pad, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the combination such that the membrane is a polymer pad, since it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroth (US 7,112,249 B2), as applied to claim 1, and in view of Nelson (US 6,143,236).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, as applied to claim 1, Schroth does not explicitly disclose a blow forming tooling assembly wherein the first tooling portion comprises a seal groove, wherein a seal is disposed within the seal groove nor wherein the seal groove is a first seal groove and the seal is a first seal, wherein the second tooling portion comprises a second seal groove, wherein a second seal is disposed within the second seal groove.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (seal grooves; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Nelson discloses the known technique of an O-ring groove provided to accommodate an O-ring to provide a vacuum seal between the top and bottom of the mold during the molding process (col 5, lns 57-65).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the assembly disclosed in Schroth by applying the known technique of an O-ring groove provided to accommodate an O-ring to provide a vacuum seal between the top and bottom of the mold during the molding process disclosed in Nelson to the assembly comprising a first tooling portion and a second tooling portion as disclosed in Schroth such that the first tooling portion comprises a seal groove, wherein a seal is disposed within the seal groove, wherein the seal groove is a first seal groove and the seal is a first seal, wherein the second tooling portion comprises a second seal groove, and wherein a second seal is disposed within the second seal groove with predictable results and resulting in an improved assembly. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroth (US 7,112,249 B2) in view of Nelson (US 6,143,236), as applied to claim 8, and in further view of Huey (US 2015/0334479 A1).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 8, Schroth in view of Nelson do not explicitly disclose a blow forming tooling assembly wherein the membrane is a single-use, thermal plastic film.
However, in the same field of endeavor, blow forming, Huey teaches that the pliable material can be a thermoset plastic having sufficient durability to maintain its shape and avoid puncture during the blow forming operation, wherein some appropriate materials for use as the pliable material can include high-density polyethylene (wherein the membrane is a single-use, thermal plastic) (¶0018).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to substitute the material taught by Schroth in view of Nelson with the pliable high-density polyethylene material taught by Huey since the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07.
Although Schroth in view of Nelson and Huey do not specify a film, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the combination such that the membrane is a single-use, thermal plastic film, since it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Spence (US 6,907,761 B2) discloses a method of superplastically forming a workpiece comprising placing the workpiece in a die, heating the whole of the workpiece up to a temperature at which the workpiece is superplastically formable, applying a pressure differential across the workpiece to superplastically form the workpiece to the shape of the die and heating and/or cooling the workpiece to provide a temperature distribution across the workpiece during the superplastic forming process to control the thickness of the workpiece (col 1, ln 37-47).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights