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 .
Priority
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to JP2022-084973, with a filing date of 05/25/2022.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-12 drawn to an apparatus in the reply filed on 05/28/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-13 are pending. Claim 13 (drawn to a method), is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a method (s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in reply filed on 06/28/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters 31, 31a, 41, 41a, 41b and 51 have been used to designate “pulley” and characters 32, 42, 42a and 52 have been used to designate “adjustment mechanism”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because of the minor informalities listed below:
Figures, when more than one (1) figure, are to be labeled “FIG. X” where X is an Arabic numeral. For example, “Fig. 1” should read “FIG. 1”. FIG. 1 – FIG. 6 need amending.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. The abstract contains purported merits, citing,
making it possible to manufacture molded bodies with high precision.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0015] cites “a hanging mechanism for applying the tension”. The Examiner believes the Applicant meant to cite “a hanging mechanism for applying the predetermined tension”.
[0018] cites “The direction changing pulley does not have to be a single one, but may be con- figured by combining multiply pulleys”. The Examiner believes the Applicant meant to cite “The direction changing pulley does not have to be a single one, but may be configured by combining multiple pulleys”.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In Claims 8 and 12, the terms “upper side” and “lower side” have no proper antecedent basis in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 1 – the limitation “a mechanism that hangs a weight from the other end of the wire to apply a predetermined tension to hold the wire in a straight, a mechanism that winds up the other end of the wire to apply a predetermined tension to hold the wire in a straight, or a mechanism that pulls the other end of the wire to apply a predetermined tension to hold the wire in a straight” is understood by the Examiner to mean outline three possible structures to hold the wire straight, where any one of three structures, or any combination of any of the three structures, reads on the limitation.
Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 6 – the limitation “the wire in a straight” (Claim 1 3x, Claim 6 1x) is understood to mean the wire is lying in one direct line without a bend, angle or twist, or any other deviation considered not lying in one direct line.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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:
A mechanism that hangs a weight from the other end of the wire to apply a predetermined tension, in Claim 1.
A mechanism that winds up the other end of the wire to apply a predetermined tension, in Claim 1.
A mechanism that pulls the other end of the wire to apply a predetermined tension, in Claim 1.
A first adjustment mechanism for adjusting the relative position between the pulley and the mold, in Claim 1 and Claim 3.
A hanging mechanism for applying the tension, in Claim 5.
A second adjustment mechanism for adjusting the relative position with respect to the wire straightening pulley, in Claim 7
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.
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 Objections
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claim 1 – injecting the solution forming the molded body / injecting a solution forming the molded body.
Regarding Claim 8 - from the side closest to the mold to the upper side and then to the lower side, before reaching the direction change pulley / from the side closest to the mold to the upper side, and then to the lower side, before reaching the direction change pulley.
Regarding Claim 9 - at an incline / at an inclination.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-9, 12 is/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 2 recites “a first adjustment mechanism for adjusting the relative position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests applicants intended to recite “a first adjustment mechanism for adjusting a first relative position”.
Claim 5 recites “a hanging mechanism for applying the tension”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests applicants intended to recite “a hanging mechanism for applying the predetermined tension”.
Claim 6 recites “for changing the direction of the wire”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests applicants intended to recite “for changing a direction of the wire”.
Claim 7 recites “a second adjustment mechanism for adjusting the relative position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests applicants intended to recite “ a second adjustment mechanism for adjusting a second relative position”.
Claim 8 recites “in the direction in which the wire extends”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests applicants intended to recite “in a direction in which the wire extends”.
Claims 8 and 12 recite “to the upper side and then to the lower side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests applicants intended to recite “to an upper side and then to a lower side”.
Claim 9 where the term “upper” and “lower” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “upper” and “lower” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “the frame holds the mold at an incline so that one end is lower and the other end is higher” is rendered indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “the frame holds the mold at an incline so that one end is lower and the other end is higher”. It is unclear if “one end is lower and the other end is higher” is in reference to the frame or the mold. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands this to mean,
the frame can have the one end of the frame lower and the other end of the frame higher than the one end of the frame
the mold can have the one end of the mold lower and the other end of the mold higher than the one end of the mold.
a combination of a) and b)
The Claim limitations below invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function:
a) A wire holding mechanism that holds a wire, in Claim 1.
b) A fixing unit that fixes one of the wire to the frame, in Claim 1 and Claim 5.
c) A mechanism that hangs a weight from the other end of the wire to apply a predetermined tension, in Claim 1.
d) A mechanism that winds up the other end of the wire to apply a predetermined tension, in Claim 1.
e) A mechanism that pulls the other end of the wire to apply a predetermined tension, in Claim 1.
f) A first adjustment mechanism for adjusting the relative position between the pulley and the mold, in Claim 1 and Claim 3.
g) A hanging mechanism for applying the tension, in Claim 5.
h) A second adjustment mechanism for adjusting the relative position with respect to the wire straightening pulley, in Claim 7.
For a)-h), the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the claimed function.
Therefore, the respective claims is/are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
All remaining dependent claims not specifically cited are also considered to be indefinite at least because of their dependency on independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,212,716 by
Arimondi et. al. (herein “Arimondi”) in further view of U.S. Patent 7,137,800 by Longo (herein
“Longo”).
Regarding Claim 1 – Arimondi teaches a molded body manufacturing equipment for manufacturing a molded body comprising,
a mold for forming a molded body fixed to the frame; Fig. 3 element 20, Col 10 line 17, Col 3 lines 63-64, “With reference to Fig. 3, mould 20…”, “When using this mold, the polymer preform can be extracted…”. Here, a polymer preform represents a molded body.
wherein,
the mold has a plate-shaped guide attached to a portion corresponding to each end of the molded body and having a through hole for the wire to pass through; Fig. 3 end cover elements (plate shaped guide) 22, 25, 24a/24b being through holes, elements 23 being wires; Col 9 lines 33-36, 50-51, Col 10 line 20 “… the mould 20, that includes a container 21 closed at its extremities by lower and upper cover 22, 25. The mould contains a set of hole generating elements 23 of appropriate diameter, which pass through holes 24 drilled in the covers..”, “..,. the hole generating elements 23 embedded in the polymerised material (molded body) are extracted…”, “…hole generating elements 23, defined by wires…”
a wire holding mechanism that holds a wire passing through the mold; Col 11 lines 4-8, “ Microstructure-generating elements 23…may be hold straight and in tension by some appropriate means: for example, one end thereof can be fixed, and the other one clamped and tensioned with a weight or some mechanical device. Here, the fixed end is held in a fixed place by some mechanism one end and the other end attached to a clamping mechanism and a weight. The mechanisms on each end of the wire(s) and the weight can comprise a wire holding mechanism.
and an inlet for injecting the solution forming the molded body into the mold; Col 9 lines 41-42, “The mixture may be poured into the mould through an appropriate inlet…on a side of the container…”
wherein the wire holding mechanism includes,
and a mechanism that hangs a weight from the other end of the wire to apply a predetermined tension to hold the wire in a straight, a mechanism that winds up the other end of the wire to apply a predetermined tension to hold the wire in a straight, or a mechanism that pulls the other end of the wire to apply a predetermined tension to hold the wire in a straight; Col 11 lines 4-8, “ Microstructure-generating elements 23…may be hold straight and in tension by some appropriate means: for example one end thereof can be fixed, and the other one clamped and tensioned with a weight or some mechanical device. Here, the fixed end is held in a fixed place by some mechanism one end and the other end attached to a clamping mechanism and a weight. The mechanisms on each end of the wire(s) and the weight can comprise a wire holding mechanism, where the weight is included in the wire holding mechanism.
While Arimondi discloses a mold for forming a molded body and one end of a wire that passes through the mold and molded body is fixed (by some mechanism), Arimondi fails to disclose,
a frame;
a mold for forming a molded body fixed to the frame;
a fixing unit that fixes one end of the wire to the frame;
In a similar endeavor of molding a molded body with tensioned rods through the mold where the tension rods pass through holes in guide plates on either end of the mold end (Fig. 6, rods 6, guide plate 55) Longo discloses two I-beams with a pallet beam (Fig. 3, elements 9 , 11 connected at flanges 9a/11a and 9b/11b, pallet beam element 19; Col 5 lines 41-48, Col 6 lines 24-25) with a base (Fig. 1 elements 8) , with headers (Fig. 2 elements 13 , 15, Col 6 lines 6-8) which, together can constitute a frame. Further, a mold 3 (Fig. 3, Col 5 line 28) during forming of the molded body, the mold is fixed to the frame by clamps 37 that engage slots 38 of the mold, as well bolts 33 that engage pallet 19 (Fig. 4, Col 6 lines 50-57). Additionally, a fixing unit 52 affixes rods 6 to front plate 15c of header 15 (Fig. 5, Col 7 lines 37-42, 49-52), where header 15 is part of the frame. To note, the elements note above comprise part of the pretensioning fixture (Fig. 1 element 1, Col 5 line 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mechanical concepts of Longo in the apparatus of Arimondi as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of having a frame and a mold fixed to the frame as part of the pretensioning fixture to remain stationary during forming to provide stability of the fixture, as noted by Longo (Col 5 lines 32-33). Further, the use of the fixing unit to fix the rod is used to maintain the tension of the rod once the desired tension is achieved, as noted by Longo (Col 7 lines 48-49).
Regarding Claim 5 - Arimondi and Longo in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Arimondi teaches wherein the wire holding mechanism includes,
and a hanging mechanism for applying the tension by hanging a weight on the other end of the
wire; the instant limitation was disclosed in Claim 1 by Arimondi - Col 11 lines 4-8,
“ Microstructure-generating elements 23…may be hold straight and in tension by some
appropriate means: for example, one end thereof can be fixed, and the other one clamped and
tensioned with a weight or some mechanical device.
a fixing unit that fixes one end of the wire to the frame; the instant limitation was disclosed in
Claim 1 by Longo - a fixing unit 52 affixes rods 6 to front plate 15c of header 15 (Fig. 5, Col 7
lines 37-42, 49-52), where header 15 is part of the frame.
Claims 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arimondi in further view of
by Longo and in further view of U.S. Patent 4,765,307 by Dymosha (herein “Dymosha”).
Regarding Claim 2 - Arimondi and Longo in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
While the combination discloses the position of wires and tensioning of wires, the combination does not
disclose,
a pulley arranged outside the mold for passing the wire;
and a first adjustment mechanism for adjusting the relative position between the pulley and the mold;
In an analogous endeavor of guiding a wire with pulleys for cutting a work article via wire saw (Abstract), Dymosha discloses a guidance pulley system that straightens the wire with two sets of guidance pulleys (6a/b, 8a/b) that pass wire outside of a work article, where the work article is located analogously to the mold of Arimondi (Fig. 5A, work article 12), where the bottom of the work article would represent the bottom of the mold (bottom of work article 12 in contact with table 14 in Fig 5C). Further the guidance pulley system can be located with anchors (adjustment mechanism) in a vertical direction (Col2 lines 15-18, See Fig. 5A where the guidance pulley system is located in two different locations in the vertical direction, or analogously, in a normal direction with the bottom of the mold or Arimondi). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concept of pulley placement and adjustable mechanisms of Dymosha for the apparatus of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of to align the plane of the pulleys with the desired plane of the work piece (analogous to Arimondi mold/holes), and
overall, obtaining the desired tension of the system as noted by Dymosha (Col 1 line 15, Col 2 lines 15-20).
Regarding Claim 3 - Arimondi, Longo, and Dymosha in the rejection of claim 2 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 2.
Arimondi teaches wherein,
the first adjustment mechanism is a mechanism for adjusting the relative position between the
pulley and the mold in a normal direction to a bottom surface of the mold; the instant claim
was disclosed on Claim 2. Further the guidance pulley system can be located with anchors
(adjustment mechanism) in a vertical direction (Col2 lines 15-18, See Fig. 5A where the guidance
pulley system is located in two different locations in the vertical direction, or analogously, in a
normal direction with the bottom of the mold or Arimondi).
Regarding Claim 4 - Arimondi, Longo, and Dymosha in the rejection of claim 2 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 2.
While the combination discloses the first adjustment mechanism and the pulley are respectively
arranged on the outside of one end of the mold (analogously one end of a work article), the
combination does not disclose
sets of the first adjustment mechanism and the pulley are respectively arranged on the outside
of both ends of the mold;
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to duplicate the first adjustment mechanism and pulley on the opposite side of
the work article (analogous to the mold of Arimondi) of Dymosha since it have been held that a mere
duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been
motivated to duplicate first adjustment mechanism and pulley on the opposite side for the purpose of
balancing the tension.
Regarding Claim 11 - Arimondi, Longo, and Dymosha in the rejection of claim 3 above teaches all of
the limitations of claim 3.
Dymosha further teaches wherein,
sets of the first adjustment mechanism and the pulley are respectively arranged on the outside of both ends of the mold;
Dymosha discloses a guidance pulley system that straightens the wire with two sets of guidance pulleys (6a/b, 8a/b) that pass wire outside of a work article, where the work article is located analogously to the mold of Arimondi (Fig. 5A, work article 12). Further the guidance pulley system can be located with anchors (adjustment mechanism) in a vertical direction (Col2 lines 15-18, See Fig. 5A where the guidance pulley system is located in two different locations in the vertical direction, or analogously, in a normal direction with the bottom of the mold or Arimondi). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concept of pulley placement and adjustable mechanisms of Dymosha for the apparatus of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of, overall, obtaining the desired tension of the system as noted by Dymosha (Col 1 line 15).
While Dymosha does disclose another guidance pulley system with an adjustment mechanism).
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to duplicate the first adjustment mechanism and pulley on the opposite side of
the work article (analogous to the mold of Arimondi) of Dymosha since it have been held that a mere
duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been
motivated to duplicate first adjustment mechanism and pulley on the opposite side for the purpose of
balancing the tension.
Claims 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arimondi in view of
Longo, and in further view of U.S. Patent 4,765,307 by Dymosha (herein “Dymosha”) and in further view
of U.S. Patent 2,681,184 by Thomas (herein “Thomas”).
Regarding Claim 6 - Arimondi and Longo in the rejection of claim 5 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 5.
Arimondi teaches wherein the hanging mechanism includes,
a wire straightening pulley for maintaining the wire in a straight within the mold; the instant
limitation was disclosed in Claim 2; Dymosha discloses a guidance pulley system that straightens
the wire with two sets of guidance pulleys (6a/b, 8a/b) that pass wire outside of a work article,
where the work article is located analogously to the mold of Arimondi (Fig. 5A, work article 12).
and a direction changing pulley for changing the direction of the wire to a portion from which
the weight is hung;
In an analogous endeavor of guiding a wire with pulleys for cutting a work article via wire saw (Abstract),
Dymosha discloses a direction changing wire pulley (Fig. 4A, element 18,m also in Fig. A but not labelled)
but the direction changing pulley is not attached to weight.
In an analogous endeavor of wire tension control for maintaining a uniform tension in a wire (Col 1 lines
1-3), Thomas discloses where one end of a wire is fixed that moves over pulleys and then traverses
a traveling pulley that has a hanging a weight(s) attached (Fig. 2, wire 20 fixed at 18 over pulleys 22/24
and then under traveling pulley 28, with weights 50 attached).
While the weight of Thomas is not at the very end of wire 20, it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put a weight
on, or at the end, of a wire as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes to obtain the
desired/uniform tension in the wire and have the capability to change the desired tension by changing
the amount of weight, as noted by Thomas (Col 2 lines 9-11, Col 3 lines 63-67).
Regarding Claim 7 - Arimondi, Longo, Dymosha, and Thomas in the rejection of claim 6 above
teaches all of the limitations of claim 6.
Dymosha further discloses wherein,
the changing direction pulley is provided with a second adjustment mechanism for adjusting the
relative position with respect to the wire straightening pulley;
The direction changing pulley (Fig. 4A, element 18 and in Fig. 5A but not labelled) is attached to
moveable element 16, which is on rails 15 with wheels 20 (adjustment mechanism) (Col 3 lines 63-64)
which can move on the rails in a horizontal direction away from the workpiece (to the left) hence
moving its position with respect to the guidance pulley system/wire straightening pulleys (Fig. 2B
assembly, as shown in Fig. 5A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjustable components in system based
on wire tension one would be motivated to do so for the purposes, as a PHOSITA would know, to obtain
the desired/uniform tension in the wire in a wire tension system.
Regarding Claim 8 - Arimondi, Longo, Dymosha, and Thomas in the rejection of claim 6 above teaches
all of the limitations of claim 6.
Dymosha further teaches wherein,
two or more wire straightening pulleys are provided in the direction in which the wire extends;
and the wire passes through the two wire straightening pulleys from the side closest to the
mold to the upper side and then to the lower side;
before reaching the direction change pulley;
Wire 23 is on the tensile side of the work article closest to the direction changing pulley which is analogous to the direction changing pulley/weight side of Arimondi (Col 4 lines 7-8) and is the same for wire 23 in Fig.5A/5B. The guidance pulley system/wire straightening pulleys 2a/2b, 8a/8b pass the wire away from the work piece (similar to the same side of the mold of Arimondi) before the direction changing pulley is reached (element 18 in Fig A but not labelled in Fig. 5A/5B).
Regarding Claim 12 - Arimondi, Longo, Dymosha, and Thomas in in the rejection of claim 7 above
teaches all of the limitations of claim 7.
Dymosha further teaches wherein,
two or more wire straightening pulleys are provided in the direction in which the wire extends;
and the wire passes through the two wire straightening pulleys from the side closest to the
mold to the upper side and then to the lower side;
before reaching the direction change pulley;
Wire 23 is on the tensile side of the work article closest to the direction changing pulley which is analogous to the direction changing pulley/weight side of Arimondi (Col 4 lines 7-8) and is the same for wire 23 in Fig.5A/5B. The guidance pulley system/wire straightening pulleys 2a/2b, 8a/8b pass the wire away from the work piece (similar to the same side of the mold of Arimondi) before the direction changing pulley is reached (element 18 in Fig A but not labelled in Fig. 5A/5B).
Claims 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Arimondi in further view of by Longo and in further view of Dymosha and in further view of
KR20110096751A (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and
referenced ) by Kim (herein “Kim”) and U.S. Patent 9,186,722 by Morikawa et. al. (herein “Morikawa”).
Regarding Claim 9 - Arimondi and Longo in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
The combination fails to disclose,
the frame holds the mold at an incline;
so that one end is lower and the other end is higher;
In a similar endeavor to using a mold to form a molded body, Kim discloses a table connected to a
hydraulic cylinder which is connected to a frame, where the frame is holds the table and the mold at an
incline (Fig. 2, mold elements 3/1, [0013]), where one end of the mold is higher than the other. It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to use the concept of inclining the mold of Kim to the mold of Arimondi, as one would
be motivated to do so for the purpose of preventing bubbles from forming inside the mold, as noted by
Kim ([0002]).
While Kim discloses pouring material into the mold from the side of the mold that is lower when the
mold is inclined (Fig. 1a) , the combination does not disclose,
and an inlet of the mold is provided at the end held lower.
In a similar endeavor to using a mold to form a molded body while the mold is inclined, Morikawa
discloses a tilted mold where the injection port 53 is at the end of mold that is held lower (Fig. 3 element
53, Col 6 lines 45-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concept of having the injection port (inlet)
held lower when the mold is tilted so push the air into the upper space of the mold (Col 6 lines 50-51),
as noted by Morikawa, where this motivation links to Kim (preventing bubbles from forming inside the
mold. Further, tilting molds during forming is common in the art for the purpose of removing air/air
bubbles. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her
technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
ordinary skill and common sense. KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 10 - Arimondi, Longo, Kim and Morikawa in the rejection of claim 9 above teaches all
of the limitations of claim 9.
Morikawa illustrates an angle of inclination for the mold in (Fig. 1a) but does not disclose a specific angle
of inclination where,
an angle of the inclination is 45 degrees or less;
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to optimize the angle of inclination of the mold, since it has been held that
where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or
workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the
angle of inclination of the mold for the purpose of optimizing bubble release, as is known in the art.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover
optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters
through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,
105 USPQ 233, 235.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Utaka (WO2018163239A1) discloses a wire straightening apparatus using multiple sets of rollers.
Mabuchi (WO2015190583A1) discloses a system of straightening wires with tension, where the ends of the wire are fixed, where the wires traverse two sets of rollers/pulleys, where one set of rollers/pulleys is adjustable.
Salinas et. al (USPGPUB 20070095107A1) discloses a mold for forming a molded body where wires pass through the mold, where the mold has end covers that axt as guide plates for the wires.
Burgher (U.S. Patent 1,128,223) discloses a wire straightening device with sets of adjustable rollers with roller supporting tension forks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights