DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zanella (US 4,584,155) in view of Sano (US 4,470,786).
As to claim 1, Zanella teaches a metal mold (4:51; Fig. 8) capable of the stated intended use of covering a side face of a battery with resin.
Zanella provides a space (Fig. 8, item 15) in which a first end portion of an article (item 1 to left of 20 and 21) can be placed. Zanella teaches a fixing member (item 20) which can fix the first end portion of the article in the space (item 15). The Zanella article (item 1) has a second end portion (item 1 to right of 20 and 21) opposite the first end portion that protrudes from the space. Zanella teaches a fixed part (item 21) which supports a first end face of the article in a thickness direction and a movable part (item 20) movable in the thickness direction to press against a second end face of the article on an opposite side of the first end face. The Zanella article (item 1) can be fixed by sandwiching the first end face and second end face between the fixed and movable parts (as shown in Fig. 8). The pressure applied to the article by the movable part is established by the spring (22) and is therefore at most a threshold value established by the spring (and its spring constant). Since the Zanella apparatus is configured to adjust the injection pressure (see Example 1 at 90 bar and Example 2 at 70 bar), it necessarily has a control unit that adjusts the amount of resin supplied into the space in accordance with the position of the movable part because the injection pressure will fill any cavity connected to the injector. These predetermined threshold values (see Example 1 and Example 2) are not limiting features for the claimed apparatus, but these pressures would obviously not damage the Zanella article.
Zanella is silent to the claimed movable part first inclined portion and movable auxiliary part with a second inclined portion and moving the movable part in the thickness direction by moving the movable auxiliary part and contact between the first and second inclined portions and a control unit that controls the movement of the movable auxiliary part.
Sano teaches a first inclined portion (item 23) with a retractable (movable) support pin (item 14) that moves in the thickness direction to contact a preform. Sano provides a movable auxiliary part (item 22) with a second inclined portion where contact between the first (item 23) and second (item 22) inclined portions causes movement of the movable part. In the combination with Zanella, one would have recognized that the Sano movable auxiliary part could be used to actuate the Sano movable part. Additionally, Sano provides a control unit (3:20-51) with a pressure sensor and which controls movement of the movable auxiliary part.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Sano actuation device into Zanella because (a) Zanella teaches/suggests applying pressure to an article in the thickness direction and Sano teaches a device for applying pressure to an article in the thickness direction within the scope of the Zanella teaching/suggestion, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that both references operate in the thickness direction. Alternatively, (b) Zanella teaches/suggests applying pressure to an article in the thickness direction and Sano teaches a device for applying pressure to an article in the thickness direction that one would have recognized to be an obvious interchangeable substitute device for applying pressure in a thickness direction. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one pressure element for another to provide the predictable result that the Zanella seal would still apply pressure in the thickness direction.
As to claim 4, the modified Zanella mold is configured in a manner capable of covering an end face of a preliminary resin. The specific structure of the material worked upon (battery covered in advance with preliminary resin) is not a limiting feature of the claimed apparatus.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zanella (US 4,584,155) in view of Sano (US 4,470,786), and further in view of Norwood (US 3,996,839). Zanella and Sano teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 5, Zanella is silent to the control unit being a servo cylinder.
Norwood teaches a hydraulic cylinder which is controlled by a servo-cylinder (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Norwood servo cylinder into the modified Zanella apparatus because Sano teaches/suggests that the slide core be connected to a driving source of hydraulic power, and Norwood provides a control system and driving source for hydraulic power connected to a rod (18). Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the Norwood servo cylinder could be used as an obvious interchangeable substitute for the unknown/unstated controller of Sano.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-7 is that claim 1 was amended to incorporate the subject matter of claim 2, and that Zanella does not teach all subject matter of claim 1. Applicant argues on page 7 that Sano does not teach adjusting the amount of resin based on the position of a movable part. Applicant argues that Sano withdraws/retracts the pin when resin charging nears completion, and does not maintain clamping throughout the molding process and provides not fixed part and movable part.
There does not appear to be any dispute that Sano is within the Applicant’s field of endeavor, and it represents an alternative device to the Zanella device for actuating features projecting into a mold during an injection process. Since the claimed invention is an apparatus, the actual process steps disclosed by Sano are not necessarily pertinent to the discussion. The structure of the Sano actuator is pertinent even if the apparatus is not used in the same manner. Zanella teaches a device configured and capable of adjusting the injection pressure (see Example 1 at 90 bar and Example 2 at 70 bar). The injection pressure will fill any cavity connected to the injector, and this reasoning seems to be the same as Applicant’s support for the control unit that “adjusts the amount of resin supplied”. These predetermined threshold values (see Example 1 and Example 2) are not limiting features for the claimed apparatus, but it is clear that Zanella does not suggest or seek to damage the articles placed in the mold. The Examiner recommends that Applicant focus on features directed to the claimed apparatus instead of process limitations in an apparatus claim.
The restriction is maintained and it should be noted that claim 3 is not a dependent claim since if fails to satisfy one of the conditions in 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references are cited on the attached PTO-892. However, none of the references actually show the claimed fixing member with a fixed part and movable part as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights