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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 12-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 4891081 A) in view of Simrad (US 2011/0104478 A1) and further in view of Itabashi (US 2013/0122258 A1), with supporting evidence from NPL.
Regarding claim 1, Takashi discloses a method of manufacturing an article [abstract], comprising: providing a molding device (2) having a first mold and a second mold (30 and 31); disposing a component between the first mold and the second mold (see figure 10), wherein the component includes a hollow space (figures 3 and 4) and an opening in communication with the hollow space (figures 9-12); engaging the opening with the first mold or the second mold (figures 12); engaging the first mold with the second mold to form a mold cavity surrounding the component (figure 3), wherein the opening is engaged with a feeding port of the molding device communicable with the hollow space (opening 11, figure 3); injecting a molding material into the hollow space through the feeding port and the opening (claim 1), wherein the molding material includes a polymeric material (column 5 lines 15-21)
and foaming the molding material to form a foamed member, wherein the foamed member is in contact with an inner surface of the component (column 5 lines 11-21).
Takashi does not explicitly disclose a blowing agent. However, analogous art, Simrad discloses using blowing agents in order to readily expand to form a cellular foam [0044]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a blowing agent, as taught by Simrad, into the molding process taught by Takashi, in order to expedite the cellular foam process.
Takashi does not explicitly disclose the component is air permeable. However, analogous art, Itabashi, discloses utilizing providing a molding device (2) having a first mold and a second mold (21 and 22) disposing a component (21,22, 31) between the first mold and the second mold (see figure 4), wherein the component includes a hollow space (figures 3 and 4) and an opening in communication with the hollow space (21, 22, 31); engaging the opening with the first mold or the second mold (figures 4); engaging the first mold with the second mold to form a mold cavity surrounding the component (figure 4), wherein the opening is engaged with a feeding port of the molding device communicable with the hollow space (22 a); injecting a molding material into the hollow space through the feeding port and the opening [0034] wherein the molding material includes a polymeric [0036] and also discloses the component is air permeable (abstract). Since Takashi and Itabashi methods are analogous, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add a component that is air permeable since it forms a foam molded product with a high degree of accuracy [0005]. Further, both methods are identical in terms of providing molding device having a first and second mold disposing a component providing a molding device having a first mold and a second mold; disposing a component between the first mold and the second mold, wherein the component includes a hollow space and an opening in communication with the hollow space; engaging the opening with the first mold or the second mold; engaging the first mold with the second mold to form a mold cavity surrounding the component, wherein the opening is engaged with a feeding port of the molding device communicable with the hollow space, and the component is air permeable; injecting a molding material into the hollow space through the feeding port and the opening, wherein the molding material includes a polymeric material. Therefore, both methods have an air permeable component. Additionally, NPL, discloses stretch films can be breathable (see attached NPL).
Regarding claim 2, Takashi discloses expanding the component during or after the injection of the molding material into the hollow space (column 7 lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 3, Takashi discloses wherein the component is expanded until the component is contact with an interior sidewall of the mold cavity (column 7 lines 20-30).
Regarding claim 4, Takashi does not explicitly disclose wherein the feed port is formed after the engagement of the first mold with the second mold. However, MPEP 2144.04 states in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the feed port is formed after the engagement of the first mold with the second mold since splitting of one step into two or chancing the order of steps is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi depicts the feeding port is disposed at a first sidewall of the first mold or a second sidewall of the second mold (see figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi discloses wherein the feeding port (opening 11) is disposed between the first mold and the second mold (see figure 3), the feeding port includes a first partial port at the first mold and a second partial port at the second mold (see figure 3), and the first partial port is aligned with the second partial port when the molding device is in a closed configuration (see figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi discloses wherein the opening and a portion of the component adjacent to the opening are disposed within the feeding port (figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, Takashi discloses a method of manufacturing an article (abstract), comprising: providing a molding device (2) having a first mold and a second mold (30 and 31); disposing a component between the first mold and the second mold (figure 10), wherein the component includes a hollow space (figures 3 and 4) and an opening in communication with the hollow space (figures 9-12); engaging the opening with the first mold or the second mold (figure 12); engaging the first mold with the second mold to form a mold cavity surrounding the component (figure 3), wherein the opening is engaged with a feeding port of the molding device communicable with the hollow space (opening 11, figure 3), the feeding port is disposed at a sidewall of the molding device (although Takahashi does not explicitly disclose at a sidewall, MPEP 2144.04 states shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the feeding port disposed at a sidewall since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious., and the component is disposed within the mold cavity (figures 3 and 4); injecting a molding material into the hollow space through the feeding port and the opening(claim 1); and foaming the molding material to form a foamed member, wherein the hollow space is expanded within the mold cavity during the formation of the foamed member (Column 4 lines 53+).
Takashi does not explicitly disclose the component is air permeable. However, analogous art, Itabashi, discloses utilizing providing a molding device (2) having a first mold and a second mold (21 and 22) disposing a component (21,22, 31) between the first mold and the second mold (see figure 4), wherein the component includes a hollow space (figures 3 and 4) and an opening in communication with the hollow space (21, 22, 31); engaging the opening with the first mold or the second mold (figures 4); engaging the first mold with the second mold to form a mold cavity surrounding the component (figure 4), wherein the opening is engaged with a feeding port of the molding device communicable with the hollow space (22 a); injecting a molding material into the hollow space through the feeding port and the opening [0034] wherein the molding material includes a polymeric [0036] and also discloses the component is air permeable (abstract). Since Takashi and Itabashi methods are analogous, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add a component that is air permeable since it forms a foam molded product with a high degree of accuracy [0005]. Further, both methods are identical in terms of providing molding device having a first and second mold disposing a component providing a molding device having a first mold and a second mold; disposing a component between the first mold and the second mold, wherein the component includes a hollow space and an opening in communication with the hollow space; engaging the opening with the first mold or the second mold; engaging the first mold with the second mold to form a mold cavity surrounding the component, wherein the opening is engaged with a feeding port of the molding device communicable with the hollow space, and the component is air permeable; injecting a molding material into the hollow space through the feeding port and the opening, wherein the molding material includes a polymeric material. Therefore, both methods have an air permeable component. Additionally, NPL, discloses stretch films can be breathable (see attached NPL).
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi discloses wherein the foamed member is in contact with an inner surface of the component (figures 3-5).
Regarding claim 14, Takahashi discloses wherein the molding material undergoes physical foaming during the foaming (column 5 lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 15, Takahashi discloses applying a force to the molding device during or after the injection of the molding mixture to maintain the mold cavity or the hollow space at a predetermined pressure level (column 7 lines 55-68).
Regarding claim 18, Takahashi discloses wherein the component is flexible or elastic (column 5 lines 22-30).
Regarding claim 19, Takahashi discloses wherein the feeding port is disposed between the first mold and the second mold (see figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 20, Takahashi discloses wherein a portion of the component adjacent to the opening is inserted into the feeding port the when the opening is engaged with the feeding port (figures 3 and 4).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Takahashi (US 4891081 A) in view of Simrad (US 2011/0104478 A1) and further in view of Itabashi (US 2013/0122258 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yamasaki (US2019/0224891A1).
Regarding claim 5, Takashi does not explicitly discloses providing an extruding system configured to produce the molding material and having a melting unit and a mixing unit; and providing a discharging channel communicable with the extruding system and including an outlet disposed distal to the extruding system and configured to discharge the molding material; and engaging the discharging channel with the feeding port prior to or after the engagement of the first mold and the second mold, wherein the molding material is injected from the extruding system through the discharging channel into the hollow space. Analogous art, Yamasaki, discloses using an extruder (13) configured to produce the molding material and having a melting unit (heated in cylinder 13, [0032]) and a mixing unit (rotation of crew that allows kneading [0032]); and providing a discharging channel (25) communicable with the extruding system and including an outlet (27) disposed distal to the extruding system and configured to discharge the molding material; and engaging the discharging channel (23) with the feeding port prior to or after the engagement of the first mold and the second mold, wherein the molding material is injected from the extruding system through the discharging channel into the hollow space (see figure 1) [0033-0035] for the benefit of molding the cavity with high accuracy [0005]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an extruding system configured to produce the molding material and having a melting unit and a mixing unit; and providing a discharging channel communicable with the extruding system and including an outlet disposed distal to the extruding system and configured to discharge the molding material; and engaging the discharging channel with the feeding port prior to or after the engagement of the first mold and the second mold, wherein the molding material is injected from the extruding system through the discharging channel into the hollow space as taught by Yamasaki, into the method taught by the combination of Takashi for the benefit of molding the cavity with high accuracy.
Regarding claim 6, Yamasaki depicts the feeding port is engageable with the outlet (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Takahashi discloses disengaging the first mold and the second mold after the foamed member is formed and removing the article including the component and the foamed member from the molding device (column 14 lines 38-41).
Regarding claim 17, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose further comprising trimming a side of the article, wherein the foamed member is disposed between a first portion of the component and a second portion of the component separated from the first portion. Analogous art, Yamasaki, discloses cutting off extra material [0056]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the step of trimming a side of the article, wherein the foamed member is disposed between a first portion of the component and a second portion of the component separated from the first portion, as taught by Yamasaki, for the benefit of cutting extra material.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Takahashi (US 4891081 A) in view of Simrad (US 2011/0104478 A1) and further in view of Itabashi (US 2013/0122258 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gianni (US5124095A).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi doesn’t explicitly disclose injecting a gas into the mold cavity or the hollow space after the engagement of the first mold and the second mold to increase a pressure inside the mold cavity or the hollow space. However, analogous injection molding art, Gianni, discloses injecting a gas into the mold cavity (column 10 lines 31+) for the benefit of increasing viscosity (column 10 lines 55-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated injecting a gas into the mold cavity or the hollow space after the engagement of the first mold and the second mold to increase a pressure inside the mold cavity or the hollow space, as taught by Gianni, into the method taught by the combination of Takahashi for the benefit of increasing viscosity.
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi doesn’t explicitly disclose discharging a gas from the mold cavity or the hollow space to decrease a pressure in the mold cavity or the hollow space. However, analogous molding art, Gianni, discloses discharging gas in pulses to control the gas pressure (column 11 lines 15-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated discharging a gas from the mold cavity or the hollow space to decrease a pressure in the mold cavity or the hollow space as taught by Gianni, into the method taught by Takahashi for the benefit of controlling the polymer melt.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Takahashi’s expansible film is an airtight/impermeable material. However, absent the disclosures reciting this limitation, it is unreasonable for applicant to make a leap and assume the expanded film is air permeable. Further, analogous art, Itabashi, discloses the same method steps as Takahashi and further discloses the film is airtight/impermeable material. Therefore, it is safe to assume, Takahashi invention would also be permeable. Additionally, NPL, discloses stretch films can be breathable (see attached NPL).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights