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 1-11) in the reply filed on 8/7/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the reference Rimondi does not teach the special technical feature of per-batch determination of curing time used to control the immediate curing step as claimed. This is not found persuasive because Rimondi discloses, (for example) in Fig. 8, a system 63 for optimizing cure of a given compound 65 (col. 11, lines 10-11). Press 24 includes a plurality of temperature sensors 68, 70, 72, and 74 any one or more of which may be used to empirically determine a temperature-time profile 76 of curing process 67 (col. 11, lines 37-40). Here, the temperature-time profile of the curing process will include the determination of curing time when the process is used (in step 82) after completing the optimization (in step 80) (as shown in Fig. 8).
Thus, the prior art teaches the shared technical feature meaning that it is not a special technical feature and the claims lack unity of invention a posteriori.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the time required for" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the item is pointed out. The claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 2-11 depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Rimondi et al. (US 5,784,283).
Regarding claims 1, 10, Rimondi discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 8, 11, a method to produce parts by shaping and curing a raw material comprising the steps (ABSTRACT):
a batch of raw material is produced (e.g., given compound 65 in Fig. 8 (col. 11, lines 10-14; col. 10, lines 8-9 (i.e., batch to batch)));
at least one cure property of the raw material of a sample is determined (i.e., a temperature-time profile 76 of curing process 67 (col. 11, lines 37-40); here, the temperature is considered as one cure property with the required time));
shaping the raw material (as shown in Fig. 11; col. 12, lines 9-19);
a time required for the shaped raw material to cure is determined taking into account the at least one cure property (e.g., as shown in Fig. 8, if cure is optimized, then system 63 ends at 82 and process 67 may be used to optimize cure for given compound 65 (col. 11, 59-60); i.e., the required time in the temperature-time profile 76 is determined after the completion of optimization);
curing of the shaped raw material until the determined time has elapsed (i.e., in the step 81, the required time in the temperature-time profile 76 is used for shaping the selected compound; it is also noticed that, as the time approaching the required time, the different temperatures will reach the final curing temperature (related to claim 10)).
Regarding claim 2, Rimondi discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 8, 11, the shaped raw material is heated to cure the shaped raw material (col. 11, lines 15-21) and the supply of heat is stopped when the determined time has elapsed (col. 12, lines 9-19 (i.e., when the required time following the selected temperature-time profile 76 is reached, heating will be stopped)).
Regarding claim 3, Rimondi discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 11, the raw material is brought into a mold (item 26 (including upper and lower mold halves 38, 40) in Fig. 11) and the shaped raw material (e.g., item 21 in Fig. 11 (col. 11, lines 19-21)) is cured by heating the mold (col. 11, lines 28-36).
Regarding claim 4, Rimondi discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 11, an “optimized cure” provides the most complete cure with the lowest cure time and/or energy input, providing a tool to use plant facilities as economically as possible to produce high quality rubber products (col. 12, lines 42-46). Thus, Rimondi discloses that, a finished part, such as tire(s) (as shown in Fig. 11), is removed from the mold as soon as the determined time has elapsed.
Regarding claims 5, 6, Rimondi discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 8, 11, a processing unit which shapes the raw material and cures the shaped raw material includes a computer (col. 12, lines 20-39), which determines the time required for curing by calculation (i.e., in step 80 for optimization). It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 8, when the database 62 grows, the best second guess is also likely to become more accurate (col. 12, 37-38). Thus, when the optimization is finalized, the final temperature-time profile will be stored in the database for operator using (col. 12, lines 31-39) (related to claim 6).
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 7-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimondi et al. (US 5,784m283) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Rodrigues et al. (US 2022/0152886).
Regarding claims 7, 11, Rimondi derives, as illustrated in Fig. 8, an optimized curing process for a given compound including use of the database (col. 5, lines 20-22). Thus, Rimondi has to identify the given compound for a later usage through the database. However, Rimondi does not explicitly disclose how to identify the compound (i.e., the batch of raw material) with a code reader.
In the same field of endeavor, casting of polymers, Rodrigues discloses that, it is preferred that a package of the raw material is equipped with a code like a barcode or a QR-code and that the scanner reads the code. It is very preferred that the electronic device (7) is a mobile electronic device comprising the scanner (i.e., a code reader) (Fig.; [0029], lines 12-17). The system comprises an electronic device 7 which might be a smartphone ([0039], lines 1-2) (related to claim 11). Rodrigues discloses that, the sever 11 according to this embodiment is remote to the electronic device 7 and might comprise a data base as well as a processing unit ([0038], lines 1-3 from bottom). Thus, the smartphone as the electronic device should, preferably, be connected with the server via wire-less connection ([0040], line 3 from bottom) (related to claim 11).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Rimondi to have the batch of raw material as Rodrigues teaches that it is known to have the smartphone to read the code on the package of the raw materials for identification and communicate wirelessly with the data base in the sever. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claims 8, 9, Rimondi derives, as illustrated in Fig. 8, an optimized curing process for a given compound including use of the database (col. 5, lines 20-22). Thus, Rimondi has to identify the given compound for a later usage of curing through the database. However, Rimondi does not explicitly disclose how to identify the compound (i.e., the batch of raw material) by using a cell phone.
In the same field of endeavor, casting of polymers, Rodrigues discloses that, it is preferred that a package of the raw material is equipped with a code like a barcode or a QR-code and that the scanner reads the code. It is very preferred that the electronic device (7) is a mobile electronic device comprising the scanner (i.e., a code reader) (Fig.; [0029], lines 12-17). The system comprises an electronic device 7 which might be a smartphone ([0039], lines 1-2) (related to claim 9). Rodrigues discloses that, the sever 11 according to this embodiment is remote to the electronic device 7 and might comprise a data base as well as a processing unit ([0038], lines 1-3 from bottom).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Rimondi to have the batch of raw material as Rodrigues teaches that it is known to have the smartphone to read the code on the package of the raw materials for identification. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 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, Alison L 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights