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 Group I (species A – single displacement, including claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 02/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “displacement portion” “first displacement portion” second displacement portion” in claims 1 and 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See specification [0019] - [022], [0027] discloses use of lever system as displacement portions.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-4 are ejected 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 1 recites “a mold device” in the preamble, the body at line 3 recites “a plurality of mold devices” and at lines 9-10 recites “the first surface facing one of the mold devices”. Claim as written is vague and indefinite since initially applicant claims only one mold device (as per preamble) then body recites “plurality of mold devices” within the single mold device, and then the ending of claim 1 refers to “another one of the mold device” (which appears to be additional molding device) instead of referring to the single mold device or even the plurality of mold devices. Claim 1 needs further amendment to clarify whether there is a single mold device applicant intends to claim, or a system, in which includes a plurality of molding devices. Applicant is urged to clarify this in the next action. Claims 2-4 that are dependent upon claim 1, are similarly rejected.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathy, Jr. et al. (US 8, 573, 963 B2; hereinafter “Mathy”) in view of SEKISUI Chem Co LTD (JP 2002178372 A, herein after “SEKISUI”, see the Examiner provided translation).
Regarding claim 1, Mathy teaches a mold device capable of foam molding which includes a first mold and a second mold (Figs 1-10; 134, 126 as molds; see also col 2 lines 5 to col 10 lines 65 which discloses having plurality of mold assemblies mounted on a rotatable turntable and each of the mold assembly including mold halves 136, 126 that are opened and closed in different positions), and in which a cavity is formed by closing the first and second molds (see Figs 1-10) , a plurality of the mold devices being disposed side by side on a conveyor ) (Fig 1 item 22-base, movable member or wheel 24 mounted on the base for rotation thereon about a rotational axis A, see col 3 lines 45-65 discloses having at least eight mold stations 38 side by side), the mold device comprising;
a displacement portion that is disposed on a first-surface side of the first mold and is displaced (see Fig. 3-4 specifically including item 165, 172, 111 along with cam follower 156 all as part of the displacement device, with additional other elements see col 5 lines 1 to col 6 lines 65), along the first surface and in a first direction that is a direction along the first surface (see Fig. 3-4) , between a press position and a release position (see Figure 3 closed position see mold 134 and 132 , and Fig. 4 opened positions where 134 and 132 are opened), the displacement portion pressing the second mold against the first mold when positioned in the press position and releasing the pressing when positioned in the release position (see Figs. 3-4 displacement portion on both sides for opening and closing, see col. 4 lines 5 to col 7 Lines 65), however, fails to teach the first surface facing another one of the mold devices that is adjacent to the mold device.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to molding, SEKISUI teaches that displacement device positioned for locking two side surfaces of the molding devices (see Figs. 1-2; mold 3 and 5 includes mold opening prevention mechanism including locking lever mounted to shaft 65 that allows mold to be oriented in two different positions). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to modify Mathy with having displacement device (including lever) positioned side surfaces of the mold, as taught by SEKISUI, for the benefit of efficiently supporting split mold in two positions, thereby preventing occurrence of a flash and a reduction in size of molding machine to be compatible by enabling assurance of a sufficient mold clamping force without increasing in size the machine for a mold for injection molding. With having such displacement device in such position as taught by Sekisui, it would face the other molding devices as taught by Mathy, therefore, claim subject matter would have been obvious over the combination.
Regarding claim 2, Mathy teaches a mold device which includes a first mold and a second mold, and in which a cavity is formed by closing the first and second molds (Figs 1-10, item 132,134; see col 5 lines 1-10), the mold device comprising:
a first displacement portion that is provided on the first surface of the first mold and is displaced, along the first surface and in the first direction that is a direction along the first surface, between a first press position and a first release position (Fig 3-4, uses camming system for displacement of the split molds of the mold system 38, there are plurality of systems 38; see col 2 lines 10 to col 8 lines 10),
the first displacement portion pressing the second mold against the first mold when positioned in the first press position and releasing the pressing when positioned in the first release position (Fig 3-4 shows camming system used for displacement including items 156, 152,162,148,146,162; see col 3. Lines 45 to col 6 likes 65); and
a second displacement portion and the second displacement portion pressing the second mold against the first mold when positioned in the second press position and releasing the pressing when positioned in the second release position (see Fig. 2-3 camming provided on both sides), however, fails to teach that the second displacement is provided on a second surface intersecting the first surface and is displaced along the same direction as the first direction between a second press position and a second release position.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to molding, SEKISUI teaches that the second displacement (6) is provided on a second surface intersecting the first surface and is displaced along the same direction as the first direction between a second press position and a second release position (see Figs. 1-2; mold 3 and 5 includes mold opening prevention mechanism including locking lever mounted to shaft 65 that allows mold to be oriented in two different positions).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing of the instant application to modify mold device as taught by Mathy with further including second displacement as suggested by SEKISUI, for the benefit of locking side surface of the mold, thereby efficiently producing desired article, with preventing of occurrence of flash (see abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are 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. The above closest prior art Mathy, Jr. et al. (US 8, 573, 963 B2; hereinafter “Mathy”) in view of SEKISUI Chem Co LTD (JP 2002178372 A, herein after “SEKISUI”, see the Examiner provided translation), fail to teach comprising a linking portion that links the first displacement portion and the second displacement portion, wherein, when the first displacement portion is displaced from the first release position toward the first press position or the second displacement portion is displaced from the second release position toward the second press position, one of the first displacement portion and the second displacement portion is displaced to the corresponding one of the first press position or the second press position before the other.
Claims 5 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art Mathy, Jr. et al. (US 8, 573, 963 B2; hereinafter “Mathy”) in view of SEKISUI Chem Co LTD (JP 2002178372 A, herein after “SEKISUI”, see the Examiner provided translation), as provided above, fails to teach a mold device which includes a first mold and a second mold, and in which a cavity is formed by closing the first and second molds, the mold device comprising: a first displacement portion that is provided on a first surface of the first mold and is displaced, along the first surface and in a first direction that is a direction along the first surface, between a first press position and a first release position, the first displacement portion pressing the second mold against the first mold when positioned in the first press position and releasing the pressing when positioned in the first release position; a second displacement portion that is provided on a second surface intersecting the first surface and is displaced along the same direction as the first direction between a second press position and a second release position, the second displacement portion pressing the second mold against the first mold when positioned in the second press position and releasing the pressing when positioned in the second release position; and a linking portion that links the first displacement portion and the second displacement portion, wherein the first mold is a rectangle having a short side and a long side in a plan view, the second surface includes the short side, and the first surface includes the long side, and when the second displacement portion is displaced from the second release position toward the second press position, the first displacement portion is positioned in the first press position before the second displacement portion is positioned in the second press position, and, until the second displacement portion is positioned in the second press position, the first displacement portion swings in a state in which the pressing is maintained.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 12,521,927 B2 – pertains to mold clamping device (see background/summary), using tie bars(14).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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 at 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights