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 with traverse of group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 19 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the combination of Tagami and Saito could not be combined to arrive at the special technical feature, alleging that the push pin (4g) is used in conjunction with chuck claws (4d). Upon further review examiner agrees with applicant with regards to push pin (4g). However, the lack of unity of invention between groups I-III is maintained, on the grounds that even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a molding die for performing resin molding by compression molding, comprising an upper die, formed with a plurality of substrate suction holes for suctioning a substrate and a plurality of film suction holes for suctioning a release film, opening on a lower surface, a lower die, disposed below the upper die in a vertical direction and a plurality of pressing members, provided on the upper die so as to be movable up and down, such that lower end parts thereof are capable of protruding downward from the lower surface of the upper die, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Tagami et al. (US20130161879) and Saito et al. (2019136942) (machine translation) (of record). Tagami discloses a molding die comprising an upper die (“upper die” (3)) formed with a plurality of substrate suction holes opening on a lower surface ([0094]) and a plurality of film suction holes opening on the lower surface (Fig 3, “film sucking holes” (16 a)), a lower die disposed below the upper die in a vertical direction (“lower die” (2)) and Saito ‘017 teaches that an upper die can comprise of a plurality of pressing members movable up and down and protruding downward from the lower surface (“film push pin” (4h), [0034]), which is not disclosed to puncture the release film to function.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 19 May 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” or more specifically “Provided is”, etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because paragraph [0107] is disclosed as a “Reference Signs List” but is missing several reference signs, including, but not limited to, pump (150), drive mechanism (162), central hole (131b), etc.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, L8: such that lower end parts of the plurality of pressing members are capable of
Claim 6, L2: [[a]] the lower surface of the upper die comprises
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-7 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 3 recites the limitation of “further comprising an elastic member, pushing the pressing member downward”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear whether: a) said “pressing member” is one/several/all of the pressing members within “a plurality of pressing members” as disclosed in claim 1 or a separate instance of the “pressing member”; and b) whether each individual “pressing member” has their own “an elastic member” or if one “elastic member” is shared by some/all “pressing member(s)”.
For purpose of examination, claim 3 will be interpreted as “The molding die according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of pressing members comprises an elastic memberthat pushes its respective pressing member downward.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of “wherein the pressing member comprises a restricting part that restricts downward movement. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear whether: a) said “the pressing member” is one/several/all of the pressing members within “a plurality of pressing members” as disclosed in claim 1 or a separate instance of “the pressing member”; and b) whether each individual “pressing member” has their own “a restricting part” or if one “a restricting part” is shared by some/all “pressing member(s)”.
For purpose of examination, claim 4 will be interpreted as “The molding die according to claim 1, further comprising wherein each of the plurality of [[the]] pressing members comprises a restricting part that restricts downward movement of their respective pressing member.
Claim 5 recites the limitation of “a lower end part of the pressing member is formed into a tapered shape, or to have a corner part with an R shape”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear whether said “the pressing member” is one/several/all of the pressing members within “a plurality of pressing members” as disclosed in claim 1 or a separate instance of “the pressing member”.
For purposes of examination, claim 5 will be interpreted as “The molding die according to claim 1, wherein a lower end part of each of the plurality of pressing members is formed into a tapered shape, or to have a corner part with an R shape.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation of “a first surface on which the pressing member is disposed”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear whether said “the pressing member” is one/several/all of the pressing members within “a plurality of pressing members” as disclosed in claim 1 or a separate instance of “the pressing member”.
For purposes of examination, claim 6 with be interpreted as “a first surface on which the plurality of pressing members are [[is]] disposed, and”.
As claim 7 is dependent on claim 6, it stands as rejected for similar reasons.
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:
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(s) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagami (US20130161879) (of record) in view of Lin et al. (US20120040500).
Regarding claim 1, Tagami discloses a molding die for performing resin molding by compression molding, comprising :
an upper die (“upper die” (3)) formed with a plurality of substrate suction holes opening on a lower surface ([0094], “work sucking holes”) and a plurality of film suction holes opening on the lower surface (Fig 3, “film sucking holes” (16 a)), a lower die disposed below the upper die in a vertical direction (“lower die” (2))
While Tagami does not explicitly disclose that molding die comprises a plurality of pressing members, provided on the upper die so as to be movable up and down, such that lower end parts thereof are capable of protruding downward from the lower surface of the upper die, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Lin, which is within the molding art, teaches that for a molding die comprising of a plurality of suction holes (“vacuum holes” (115, 117)), the die can comprise of a plurality of pressing members ("ejection pins" (131)) that movable up and down so as to protrude from a surface of the die (Fig 1A,1B) for the benefit of assisting in releasing the finished product after molding ([0031]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tagami teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Lin teaches that the plurality of ejection pins (131) can be interspersed among the vacuum holes (115, 117) so as to be surrounded when viewed from a vertical direction (Fig 1B) and that other arrangements of ejector pin positioning and amount are available, modified Tagami teaches that the plurality of pressing members are disposed, when viewed from the vertical direction, inside an area surrounded by the plurality of film suction holes, and the plurality of substrate suction holes are formed, when viewed from the vertical direction, inside an area surrounded by the plurality of pressing members.
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagami (US20130161879) (of record) and Lin et al. (US20120040500) as set forth above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Saito ‘017 (JP2011046017A) (machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tagami teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Lin is silent as to how the plurality of pressing members are operated or structured, more specifically that each of the plurality of the pressing members comprises an elastic member that pushes its respective pressing member downward, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given
a) Saito ‘017, which is within the molding art, teaches that, for a plurality of pressing members (“ejector pins” (140)) for use in a molding die (“upper mold” (100)), said ejector pins (140) further comprise of an elastic member for biasing the pressing member in a direction (“spring” (160), [0030]);
b) it has been held that the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable is well within the ability of a person of ordinary skill’s ability to consider obvious (see MPEP 2143(I)(A));
c) the combination of Saito ‘017’s springs (160) with the ejection pins (131) of Lin for the predictable result of enabling movement of the ejection pins would have been well within a person of ordinary skill’s ability to find obvious.
Regarding claim 4, modified Tagami teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Lin is silent as to how the plurality of pressing members are operated or structured, more specifically that each of the plurality of pressing members comprises a restricting part that restricts downward movement of their respective pressing member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given
a) Saito ‘017, which is within the molding art, teaches that, for a plurality of pressing members (“ejector pins” (140)) for use in a molding die (“upper mold” (100)), said ejector pins (140) further comprise of restricting part for restricting movement (“flange portion” (142), Fig 2, 3);
b) it has been held that the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable is well within the ability of a person of ordinary skill’s ability to consider obvious (see MPEP 2143(I)(A));
c) the combination of Saito ‘017’s flange (142) with the ejection pins (131) of Lin for the predictable result of limiting the range of movement available for the pressing members would have been well within a person of ordinary skill’s ability to find obvious.
Regarding claim 5, modified Tagami teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Lin is silent as to how the plurality of pressing members are structured, more specifically that a lower end part of each of the plurality of pressing members is formed into a tapered shape, or to have a corner part with an R shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Saito ‘017, which is within the molding art, teaches that for a plurality of pressing members (“ejector pins” (140)) for use with a molding die, said plurality of pressing members comprise a lower end part of the pressing member is formed into a tapered shape, or to have a corner part with an R shape for the benefit of not damaging held structures ([0025]).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagami (US20130161879) (of record) in view of Saito et al. (JP2019136942A) (machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Tagami discloses a molding die for performing resin molding by compression molding (Fig 19A,B), comprising:
an upper die (“upper die” (3)) formed with a plurality of substrate suction holes opening on a lower surface ([0094], “work sucking holes”) and a plurality of film suction holes opening on the lower surface (Fig 3, “film sucking holes” (16 a)), a lower die disposed below the upper die in a vertical direction (“lower die” (2))
While Tagami does not explicitly disclose that molding die comprises a plurality of pressing members, provided on the upper die so as to be movable up and down, such that lower end parts thereof are capable of protruding downward from the lower surface of the upper die, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Saito, which is within the molding art, teaches that for a molding die comprising of a plurality of suction holes (“suction holes” (2b)), the die can comprise of a plurality of pressing members (“film push pin” (4h), [0034]) that movable up and down so as to protrude from a surface of the die (Fig 2) for the benefit of securing the release film ([0034]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tagami teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Saito teaches that each of the plurality of pressing members (“film push pins” (4h)) further comprise of an elastic member for biasing the pressing member in a direction (“coil spring” (4i), [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tagami teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Saito teaches that each of the plurality of pressing members comprises of restricting part for restricting downward movement of their respective pressing member (Fig 2, in that the “film push pin” (4h) and “coil spring” (4i) are housed within a discrete compartment that would limit movement).
Regarding claim 6, modified Tagami teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that:
a) Tagami teaches that upper die comprises of a plurality of surfaces on the lower surface (bottom face of “upper block” (14), bottom surface of “projecting section” (16a) which is positioned lower than that of “upper black” (14));
b) Saito teaches that the plurality of pressing members can be positioned around the area where the product is molded (Fig 2, 4);
c) the area surrounding the product molding section in Tagami comprises of the “projecting sections” (16a) (Fig 19A,B);
modified Tagami teaches that a lower surface of the upper die comprises a first surface on which the plurality of pressing members are disposed, and a second surface formed to be positioned lower than the first surface, on which the plurality of film suction holes are formed.
Regarding claim 7, modified Tagami teaches all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above except that the upper die is configured to allow adjustment of a vertical position of the second surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the second surface adjustable, since it have been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(D)). One would have been motivated to make the second surface adjustable for the purpose of molding a variety of products of different thicknesses.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagami (US20130161879) (of record) and Saito et al. (JP2019136942A) (machine translation) (of record) as set forth above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Saito ‘017 (JP2011046017A) (machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tagami teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Saito is silent as to how the plurality of pressing members are structured, more specifically that a lower end part of each of the plurality of pressing members is formed into a tapered shape, or to have a corner part with an R shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Saito ‘017, which is within the molding art, teaches that for a plurality of pressing members (“ejector pins” (140)) for use with a molding die, said plurality of pressing members comprise a lower end part of the pressing member is formed into a tapered shape, or to have a corner part with an R shape for the benefit of not damaging held structures ([0025]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is 571-272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights