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 without traverse of claims 1-7 and 9-12 in the reply filed on 06/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/26/2026.
Claim Objections
The following claim(s) are objected to because of these informalities:
In claim 1, line 7, “in the tool” should read “into the tool”.
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.
Claims 2 and 9 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 2, line 3 recites "in particular". This phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, claim 2, line 3 reads on "optionally".
Claim 9, line 6 recites "an extreme value". The term extreme is a subjective and relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is 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.
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 1-2, 6-7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cronvall (US PG Pub 2011/0183422).
Regarding claim 1, Cronvall teaches a method for process monitoring during production of a finished part from a hot-crosslinking material in a primary forming process (abstract and other sections cited below), the method comprising the following steps:
a) providing at least one tool which is set up for the primary forming process (para. 0019 and Fig. 1), the tool having at least one cavity for receiving at least one starting substance for the hot-crosslinking material (para. 0014), and further an apparatus for determining a tool internal pressure being integrated into the too (para. 0033);
b) heating the tool (para. 0031);
c) introducing the at least one starting substance for the hot-crosslinking material under pressure into the cavity, such that the finished part is produced (para. 0030);
d) recording a variation in the tool internal pressure over time that develops in step c) (paras. 0041-0046 and Figs. 4-5);
e) differentiating, at least once, the tool internal pressure profile to determine the first order derivative (paras. 0044, 0046 and as shown for dP/dT in Fig. 5); and
f) characterizing a profile of a chemical crosslinking reaction by means of the first-order derivative (paras. 0046-0047).
Regarding claim 2, Cronvall teaches the hot-crosslinking material is a thermoset (para. 0001).
Regarding claim 6, Cronvall teaches, in step f), the profile of the chemical crosslinking reaction is characterized by an evaluation of the first-order derivative (paras. 0044, 0046 and as shown for dP/dT in Fig. 5), during at least one phase of the tool internal pressure profile selected from the following group: a heating phase, a crosslinking phase (paras. 0042-0044, 0046 and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Cronvall teaches the apparatus for determining the tool internal pressure is used to directly and/or indirectly determine the tool internal pressure (para. 0033 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Cronvall teaches step f) is used to determine a conclusion of the chemical crosslinking reaction (paras. 0005 and 0046-0049).
Regarding claim 11, Cronvall teaches, if step f) is used to determine the conclusion of the chemical crosslinking reaction, step c) is ended (paras. 0005 and 0046-0049).
Regarding claim 12, Cronvall teaches by virtue of step f), a cycle time of the production of the finished part in the primary forming process is optimized (para. 0037).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronvall, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of McAteer (US PG Pub 2013/0134633).
Regarding claims 3-4, Cronvall does not teach these features, but does teach that the material may be rubber (para. 0001).
However, McAteer teaches that medical liquid silicone rubber can be formed via injection molding to provide high quality medical devices (para. 0039).
In view of McAteer’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a medical liquid silicone rubber for the material in Cronvall’s method to predictably obtain high quality medical devices.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronvall.
Regarding claim 5, Cronvall does not explicitly teach this feature.
However, Cronvall teaches that cycle time is a result-effective variable which when reduced will increase production capacity (paras. 0005 and 0037).
Thus, the recitation of claim 5 merely represents optimization of a result-effective variable and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. “[Discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art,” and the presence of such a known result-effective variable would be one … motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and also MPEP § 2144.05.II.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronvall, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bader (EP 0897786A2).
Regarding claim 9, Cronvall does not teach this feature.
However, Bader teaches a method for process monitoring during production of a finished part from a hot-crosslinking material in an injection molding process (abstract) comprising characterizing a profile of a chemical crosslinking reaction by means of the second-order derivative of the tool internal pressure (2nd paragraph on pg. 8 and 5th paragraph on pg. 10) wherein the characterization of the profile of the chemical crosslinking reaction is determined by ascertaining an extreme values of the second-order derivative (chemical crosslinking reaction by means of the second-order derivative of the tool internal pressure (2nd paragraph on pg. 8 and 5th paragraph on pg. 10).
Bader teaches that this type of characterization and control results in production of parts with good strength which are free from tension (1st paragraph on pg. 8) and good quality (1st paragraph on pg. 11).
In view of Bader’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cronvall’s method to include Bader’s second derivative characterization and control step to predictably obtain the benefits taught by Bader as cited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 571-272-1095. 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.
/JIMMY R SMITH JR./Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights