Detailed Action
The communications received 09/18/2024 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-11 are pending.
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 .
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pellegrino (US 3,147,180) hereinafter PEL.
As for claim 10, PEL teaches a tool for molding molded parts made of a fiber-containing material [Abstract], wherein steam generated during molding is removed from the molded parts pressed in the tool via channels in the tool [Fig. 9 #226-227], the tool comprising first channels [Fig. 9 #227] in a tool body of the tool in regions of molding devices for molding the molded parts and at least one device having at least one second channel [Fig. 9 #226] that is connected to the first channels and surrounds the regions in the tool body with the first channels.
As for claim 11, PEL teaches a method for controlling a supply of a gas stream into a tool for molding molded parts made of a fiber-containing material [Abstract],
wherein steam generated during molding is removed from the molded parts pressed in the tool via channels in the tool [col. 9 l. 15-29; col. 17 l. 3-21],
wherein the tool has first channels [Fig. 9 #227] in a tool body of the tool in regions of molding devices for molding molded parts, and
at least one device having at least one second channel [Fig. 9 #226] that is connected to the first channels and surrounds the regions in the tool body with the first channels,
wherein the supply of a gas stream into the at least one second channel and/or the first channels is controlled via at least one throttle device and/or a conveying device [col. 11 l. 49-54].
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pellegrino (US 3,147,180) hereinafter PEL in view of Miyamoto et al (US 5,399,243) hereinafter MIY.
As for claim 1, PEL teaches a device for supplying a gas stream to a tool for molding molded parts made of a fiber-containing material, wherein steam generated during molding is removed from the molded parts pressed in the tool via channels in the tool [col. 9 l. 30-70], the tool comprising first channels [Fig. 9 #227] in a tool body of the tool in regions of molding devices for molding the molded parts and at least one second channel [Fig. 9 #226] that is connected to the first channels and surrounds the regions in the tool body with the first channels (as outer channels that appear to surround the first channels) [Fig. 9 #226].
PEL fails to teach wherein a diameter of the at least one second channel is larger than a diameter of the first channels.
MIY teaches a pulp molding die in which there is a gaseous management system which is employed to allow for both vacuum and air supply [Abstract; Fig. 11]. MIY teaches that it is important for the outer channels closer to the sources to have larger diameters in order to allow for an improved impulse of action from the air supply in addition to having the appropriate valves [col. 12 l. 41-col. 13 l. 3].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the outer second channel of PEL be larger than its inner first channel and to have added valves between the second and first channels in order for an improved impulse application of air supply and pressure. As both PEL and MIY pertain to paper molds which employ air supply and vacuum systems they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 2, PEL/MIY teach claim 1 and PEL further teaches that the first channels are interconnected (via the common connection to the cavity and the common connection to the second channels) [Fig. 9 #227].
As for claim 3, PEL/MIY teach claim 1 and PEL further teaches that the at least one second channel jointly surrounds all the regions of the molding devices of the tool body [Fig. 9 #226].
As for claim 4, PEL/MIY teach claim 1 and in the combination, there would be valves between the first and second channels. Therefore during use, at some points there would be a connection point between the first and second channel in which there would be a smaller (closer to zero) diameter than the first channels in order to shut off the pressure.
As for claim 5, PEL/MIY teaches claim 1 and further that the opening width of connection points between the first channels and the at least second channel is a valve therefore adjustable.
As for claim 6, PEL/MIY teaches claim 1 and PEL further teaches wherein the second channel is subdivided into channel sections (each side is its own channel section) [Fig. 9 #226] and the supply of a gas stream into the channel sections is adjustable [col. 11 l. 49-54].
As for claim 7, PEL/MIY teaches claim 1 and PEL/MIY further teaches that the supply of a gas stream into the at least one second channel and first channels is adjustable (via the inclusion of valves in the combination and valves that connect the second channels to the supply) [PEL: col. 11 l. 49-54].
As for claim 8, PEL/MIY teaches claim 1 and further comprising at least one device for controlling a temperature of a gas stream that is fed into the at least one second/first channels (as there is a supply of heated air therefore there must be at least one device which controls the temperature of a gas stream by heating it to a temperature, i.e. a temperature great enough to be considered heated) [PEL; col. 9 l. 30-53, see claim 1].
As for claim 9, PEL/MIY teaches claim 1 and PEL further teaches that the first channels comprise a number of channels running orthogonally to one another (if extended out their ‘runs’ would be orthogonal in some places) [Fig. 9 #227].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/E.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748