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 .
IDS
The IDS entered 10/03/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
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)(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.
(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 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weckenmann (DE 102006051835 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Weckenmann teaches a mold apparatus (P0001, fig.1-3) comprising:
a mold main body (10) which can be coupled to at least one mold portion (12) for shaping at least portions of a cast component (P0001);
at least two magnet devices (fig.2, magnet devices 14) which each can be transferred between an interaction position in which the at least two magnet devices are configured to be magnetically operatively connected to a mold support and to fix a position of the mold main body on the mold support, and a release position in which the magnetic operative connection is reduced and the mold main body can be positioned with respect to the mold support; and
a common activation device (fig.3) by which the at least two magnet devices can be transferred at least from the interaction position into the release position at least temporarily with a time offset (P0021);
wherein the common activation device (fig.3) comprises at least one profile portion (fig.3, profile portions 55, 56) which is coupled to a first one of the at least two magnet devices to transfer the first one of the at least two magnet devices at least from the interaction position into the release position with respect to a second one of the at least two magnet devices, wherein the time offset is set by a profiling of the at least one profile portion (P0021).
Regarding claim 3, Weckenmann teaches the common activation device comprises at least two profile portions and the at least two magnet devices are each coupled to one of the at least two profile portions in order to transfer a respective one of the at least two magnet devices at least from the interaction position into the release position (fig.3, profile portions 55, 56).
Regarding claim 4, Weckenmann teaches the mold apparatus is configured to transfer at least one of the at least two magnet devices at least temporarily in a translational manner from the interaction position into the release position (fig.1, spring 22), and
wherein the mold apparatus has at least one guide device which is configured to guide the at least one of the at least two magnet devices in a translational manner.
Regarding claim 5, Weckenmann teaches the mold apparatus is configured such that a movement of the common activation device for transferring the at least two magnet devices is along a degree of freedom that is different from the transfer movement of the at least two magnet devices (fig.3, activation apparatus 53 with movement in the A and Z axes).
Regarding claim 6, Weckenmann teaches the at least one profile portion extends with at least one component perpendicular to a transfer movement direction of the respective magnet device; and/or
at least two profile portions are arranged essentially along a direction parallel to an axis of an activation movement of the common activation device (fig.3, component 54).
Regarding claim 7, Weckenmann teaches the at least one profile portion comprises a guide slot, a cam or a guide rail (fig.3, guide rails 55 or 56).
Regarding claim 8, Weckenmann teaches the at least one profile portion has a transfer section which can be in contact with the first one of the at least two magnet devices during transfer from the interaction position into the release position (fig.3, portions 55, 56).
Regarding claim 9, Weckenmann teaches the at least one profile portion comprises a transfer initiation section which is configured to initiate the transfer of the first one of the at least two magnet devices from the interaction position into the release position at a different time than that of the transfer of the second one of the at least two magnet devices, and/or comprises a transfer end section which is configured to end the transfer from the interaction position into the release position at a different time than that of the transfer of the second one of the at least two magnet devices (fig.3, portions 55, 56).
Regarding claim 10, Weckenmann teaches the mold main body comprises a housing which at least partially in each case accommodates the common activation device, and is arranged such that, in the interaction position of the at least two magnet devices, a pressing force is transmitted from the at least two magnet devices to the housing (fig.1-2, housing 24 having two magnet devices 14).
Regarding claim 11, Weckenmann teaches the at least one mold portion is configured to come into contact with the cast component (fig.1, formwork portion 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art alone or in combination do not anticipate or render obvious the limitations of claims 12-15 with attention to the limitations of a removal position in which the cast component can be removed from the at least one mold portion and a biasing means.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741