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 § 112
Claims 1-15 are rejected 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 the limitations “the cavity”,” the surface region”, “the film portion”, "the opening area", and “the opening area of the cavity” in lines 2-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the depression” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim – specifically Claim 1 recites at least one depression.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the outline of the opening area of the depression” and “the outline of the opening area of the cavity” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the depression” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim – specifically Claim 1 recites at least one depression.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the depression” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim – specifically Claim 1 recites at least one depression.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the depression” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim – specifically Claim 1 recites at least one depression.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “the surface of the heating device” and “the surface of the deep-drawing die” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim – specifically Claim 1 recites the surface region of the heating device.
Claims 4 and 8-14 depend on Claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sakamoto (US 5,273,705).
In reference to Claim 1, Sakamoto discloses using heater blocks to heat the mold (2:43-47) (a heating device which is designed to heat a packaging film in a deep-drawing method), the film is applied to the mold (2:40-50) (in the course of which the heated packaging film is molded in the cavity of a deep-drawing die), the sheet heater 38 (6:50) (wherein the surface region of the heating device, which is brought into contact with the film portion to be molded in the cavity), upper die 31 and lower die 30 depress the film (6:21-23) (has at least one depression), the depression is only part of the dies (Fig. 6) (the opening area of which is 40 to 95% of the opening area of the cavity).
In reference to Claim 2, Sakamoto discloses the device of Claim 1, as described above.
Sakamoto discloses the height of the flange is 1.5 mm (8:48-49) (the surface region of the heating device that surrounds the depression has a planar design and is enclosed by a peripheral edging having a height of 0.5 to 2 mm).
In reference to Claim 3, Sakamoto discloses the device of Claim 1, as described above.
Sakamoto discloses upper die 31 and lower die 30 depress the film (6:21-23) (the outline of the opening area of the depression is modeled on the outline of the opening area of the cavity).
In reference to Claim 4, Sakamoto discloses the device of Claim 1, as described above.
Sakamoto discloses the outer periphery of the flange is 35 mm and the diameter is 25 mm (roughly 0.7 reduction factor) (8:48-52) (the outline of the opening area of the depression is obtained from the outline of the opening area of the cavity by a reduction factor of 0.4 to 0.95).
In reference to Claim 5, Sakamoto discloses the device of Claim 1, as described above.
Sakamoto discloses a dome (8:53-54) (the depression has a hemispherical, compressed hemispherical, elongated hemispherical or compressed and elongated hemispherical three-dimensional shape).
In reference to Claim 6, Sakamoto discloses the device of Claim 1, as described above.
Sakamoto discloses a dome (8:53-54, Fig. 12) (the depression has a bottom surface which continuously descends from its edge down to its lowest point).
In reference to Claim 7, Sakamoto discloses the device of Claim 1, as described above.
Sakamoto discloses the diameter of the dome is 25 mm, with a height of 4 mm (8:50-53) which has a volume of 1,015 mm3 or 1.015 ml (the depression has a volume of 1 to 8 ml).
In reference to Claim 13, Sakamoto discloses the device of Claim 1, as described above.
Sakamoto discloses a deep drawing device with a heating device (8:63-65) (a deep-drawing device comprising said heating device).
In reference to Claim 15, Sakamoto discloses the device of Claim 13, as described above.
Sakamoto discloses the sheet heater 38 (6:50) upper die 31 and lower die 30 depress the film (6:21-23) and using heater blocks to heat the mold (2:43-47) (the deep-drawing device comprises a deep-drawing die and the distance between the surface of the heating device and the surface of the deep-drawing die is less than 10 mm).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (US 5,273,705) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Hawryluk, et al., (Development of New Preheating Methods for Hot Forging Tools Based on Industrial Case Studies and Numerical Modeling, July 9, 2020, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A, Volume 51, pages 4753-4764).
In reference to Claim 8, Sakamoto discloses the device of Claim 1, as described above.
Sakamoto does not disclose the heating device has at least two depressions which differ in terms of their maximum depth.
Hawryluk discloses using heaters in the shape of the forgings placed between the dies (Abstract) (the heating device has at least two depressions which differ in terms of their maximum depth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the device of Sakamoto using the moldable heating device of Hawryluk because the moldable material heats the dies evenly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the moldable heating device of Hawryluk to conform to the multiple spaces of Sakamoto’s die sections. The reasonable expectation of success for using the heater of Hawryluk with the device of Sakamoto would be an evenly heated molding device.
In reference to Claim 9, Sakamoto discloses the device of Claim 1, as described above.
Sakamoto does not disclose the heating device has at least two, depressions which surround one another, at least in portions.
Hawryluk discloses using heaters in the shape of the forgings placed between the dies (Abstract) (the heating device has at least two, depressions which surround one another, at least in portions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the device of Sakamoto using the moldable heating device of Hawryluk because the moldable material heats the dies evenly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the moldable heating device of Hawryluk to conform to the multiple spaces of Sakamoto’s die sections. The reasonable expectation of success for using the heater of Hawryluk with the device of Sakamoto would be an evenly heated molding device.
In reference to Claim 10, Sakamoto discloses the device of Claim 1, as described above.
Sakamoto does not disclose the heating device has at least two, depressions, one depression of which forms a central point around which the remaining depressions are arranged in a rotationally symmetrical manner.
Hawryluk discloses using heaters in the shape of the forgings placed between the dies (Abstract) (the heating device has at least two, depressions, one depression of which forms a central point around which the remaining depressions are arranged in a rotationally symmetrical manner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the device of Sakamoto using the moldable heating device of Hawryluk because the moldable material heats the dies evenly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the moldable heating device of Hawryluk to conform to the multiple spaces of Sakamoto’s die sections. The reasonable expectation of success for using the heater of Hawryluk with the device of Sakamoto would be an evenly heated molding device.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (US 5,273,705) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Aizawa, et al. (US 5,249,447).
In reference to Claim 11, Sakamoto discloses the device of Claim 1, as described above.
Sakamoto does not disclose the surface of the heating device is coated, at least in portions.
Aizawa discloses coating a metal plate that is used to heat the film (10:3-12) (the surface of the heating device is coated, at least in portions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the device of Sakamoto using the coated heating element of Aizawa because the coated surfaces allow for release. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the coated heating element of Aizawa to coat the film of Sakamoto. The reasonable expectation of success for using the coating of Aizawa with the device of Sakamoto would be a releasable final product.
In reference to Claim 12, Sakamoto discloses the device of Claim 1, as described above.
Sakamoto does not disclose the surface of the heating device is coated over the entire surface in the region of the depression(s).
Aizawa discloses coating a metal plate that is used to heat the film (10:3-12) (the surface of the heating device is coated over the entire surface in the region of the depression(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the device of Sakamoto using the coated heating element of Aizawa because the coated surfaces allow for release. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the coated heating element of Aizawa to coat the film of Sakamoto. The reasonable expectation of success for using the coating of Aizawa with the device of Sakamoto would be a releasable final product.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (US 5,273,705) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Childers, et al. (US 2017/0218146).
In reference to Claim 14, Sakamoto discloses the device of Claim 13, as described above.
Sakamoto does not disclose the deep-drawing device comprises a deep-drawing die which is arranged below the heating device.
Childers discloses heating the film before deep drawing ([0074]-[0075]) (the deep-drawing device comprises a deep-drawing die which is arranged below the heating device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the device of Sakamoto heating above the deep-drawing like Childers because it would allow for a more malleable film. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the setup of Childers with the device of Sakamoto to evenly heat before drawing. The reasonable expectation of success for using the heating of Childers with the device of Sakamoto would be a flexible film capable of being deep drawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY C GRACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST, Friday 7:00 AM - 11:00 AM 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.
KELSEY C. GRACE
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742