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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments to the abstract, claims, and specification filed 10/23/2024 and the amendments filed to the abstract, claims, and specification filed 07/16/2025 have been reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US-20170021077) in view of Yoshida (JP-2009160804), using the applicant provided original document and attached translation.
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki teaches:
A molding device comprising a resin sheet forming device ([0121] – [0123]; Fig. 24, #500), a roller unit ([0126]; Fig. 24, #530), and a mold ([0122] – [0123], [0134] – [0140], and [0143]; Fig. 24, #514 and #532), wherein:
the resin sheet forming device is configured to extrude a resin sheet in a molten state ([0123]; Fig. 24, P);
the roller unit comprises first and second rollers ([0126]; Fig. 24, #530A and #530B);
the first and second rollers are configured to rotate in opposite directions while sandwiching the resin sheet so as to feed the resin sheet below the first and second rollers ([0126] – [0133]); and
the mold has a shaping surface to shape the resin sheet ([0136] – [0138]; Figs. 24-27, #5116).
Yamazaki does not teach:
the molding device comprises a static eliminator; and
the static eliminator is configured to eliminate static from the resin sheet at a point after the resin sheet passes through the roller unit but before a bottom edge of the resin sheet reaches a lower end of a molding area of the mold.
However, Yoshida, in a similar field of endeavor, a molding device for forming resin sheets comprising rollers, teaches:
The molding device comprises a static eliminator ([0028]; Fig. 1, #23); and
the static eliminator is configured to eliminate static from the resin sheet at a point after the resin sheet passes through the roller unit but before a bottom edge of the resin sheet reaches a lower end of a molding area of the mold ([0060]; Fig. 1, #23). Yoshida describes placing the static eliminator downstream of the cooling chamber ([0060]; Fig. 1, #22), which is downstream of the rollers ([0041]; Fig. 1, #48 and #50), which are equivalent to the roller unit from Yamazaki, and upstream from the knurling rollers and winding section ([0028]; Fig. 1, #26 and #27), which are equivalent to the molding area from Yamazaki. Furthermore, Yoshida states that “the location of the static eliminator 23 is not limited to the downstream side of the cooling chamber” ([0060]) and that the purpose of the static eliminator is to reduce the amount of charge on the film ([0028]), similarly to the instant invention. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the molding device of Yamazaki to incorporate the teachings of Yoshida and include a static eliminator located downstream of the rollers and before the molding area of the mold. The purpose, as stated by Yoshida, being “in which the amount of charge on the film is reduced ([0028]).”
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US-20170021077) in view of Yoshida (JP-2009160804), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakajima (US-20160200032), using the applicant provided original document and attached translation.
Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki in view of Yoshida teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on, but does not teach the mold comprising a convex part in the molding area. However, Nakajima, in a similar field of endeavor, a molding device for making resin sheets comprising rollers, teaches:
the mold ([0031]; Fig. 4, #32) comprises a convex part in the molding area ([0053]; Fig. 4, #33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mold of Yamazaki in view of Yoshida to incorporate the teachings of Nakajima and include a convex part. The purpose, as stated by Nakajima, being for forming the ribs ([0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki in view of Yoshida and Nakajima teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 3 depends on. Nakajima further teaches:
a top of the convex part is located at a height of 0.3H or less from the lower end of the molding area, where H is total height of the molding area ([0053]; Fig. 4, #33). While the exact location of the top of the convex part is not described by Nakajima, it is clear from the figures (Figs. 3-4, #33) that it is located at a height of 0.3H or less from the lower end of the molding area. Furthermore, were this not the case, this modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using a rearrangement of parts modification to move the top of the convex part up or down slightly on the mold dependent on the requirements of the finished product to be molded, in the absence of a showing of criticality or unexpected results.
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious.
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki in view of Yoshida and Nakajima teaches the limitations of claim 3, which claim 4 depends on. Nakajima further teaches:
an inclined surface is provided at an upper side of the top of the convex part (Fig. 4, #33); and
the amount of protrusion of the inclined surface gradually decreases upward (Fig. 4, #33).
The shape of the convex part of Nakajima does technically fit the limitations as described in this claim ([0053]; Fig. 4, #33). The inclined surface is the diagonal surface of Nakajima which connects to the upper side of the top of the convex part, and the protrusion of that inclined surface does gradually decrease upward, as the convex surface gets closer and closer to the protrusion of the rest of the molding surface. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, if the claim language of this limitation were modified to further limit the convex surface so that it would represent a curved surface as is seen in the instant invention, this limitation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using a change of shape dependent on the requirements of the finished product to be molded, in the absence of a showing of criticality or unexpected results.
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966). The court held that the configuration of the claimed container was found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of of the claimed container was significant.
It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki in view of Yoshida and Nakajima teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 5 depends on. Yamazaki further teaches:
comprising a mold frame arranged around the mold ([0137] – [0139]; Fig. 24, #533).
Nakajima further teaches:
the mold frame comprises a suctioning surface capable of suctioning the resin sheet, and
the mold frame is configured to advance toward the resin sheet to suction the resin sheet and then retract relative to the mold to press the resin sheet against the convex part.
Nakajima includes a suction part ([0062]; Fig. 5, #199) which is designed to do exactly the same thing as the sectioning surface in the instant invention, grab the resin sheet and press it against the convex part ([0062] – [0063]; Fig. 7, #33). Meanwhile, Yamazaki, as described above, contains a mold frame with a pressing plate that is also designed to advance toward the resin sheet and press it against the mold (Yamazaki; [0137] – [0138]; Figs. 24-28, #533). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the mold frame and pressing part from Yamazaki with the suction part from Nakajima in order to teach a suction part on the mold frame configured to advance toward the resin sheet to suction the resin sheet and then retract relative to the mold to press the resin sheet against the convex part, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results. The purpose, as described by Nakajima, being “the resin sheet that constitutes the back wall is pressed against the cavity, and as illustrated in FIG. 6, the resin sheet that constitutes the back wall is shaped into the shape conforming to the concavo-convex surface of the cavity ([0063]).”
Regarding claim 6, Yamazaki in view of Yoshida teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on, but does not teach the roller unit comprising a frame that houses the rollers. However, Nakajima, in a similar field of endeavor, a molding device for making resin sheets comprising rollers, teaches:
the roller unit comprises a frame that houses the first and second rollers (Fig. 2, #30). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the roller unit from Yamazaki to include the frame seen in the figure in Nakajima which houses the rollers, as this is a limitation that is well known within the art and does not present any functional changes to the device, and
the static eliminator is attached to underside of the frame directly or via other component. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons described in claim 1 above using a rearrangement of parts to move the static eliminator from Yoshida to be attached to the underside of the frame.
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious.
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748