DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Coles merely states the entire mold may comprise some mixture of ceramic, polymer or glass and does not teach any type of bodies embedded in a plastic material.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion noting Coles specifically contemplates a composite mold [0212] and further specifies the mold can be made of at least one of ceramic, polymer or glass [0725] thus contemplates a plastic matrix with bodies embedded therein.
Double Patenting
Examiner notes the terminal disclaimer filed July 15, 2026 was disapproved and needs to be resubmitted.
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.
Claims 2, 5-15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wardlaw et al (PGPub 2014/0223673 cited in IDS) in view of Coles et al (PGPub 2014/0243442 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 2, Wardlaw teaches a method for the manufacture of a plastic component (Abstract), comprising:
a) loading a mold with a first material which comprises particles of an expanded material ([0091]- loading the mold with particles of an expanded material);
b) closing the mold ([0091]- the mold is closed);
c) pre-heating the particles of an expanded material ([0091]- By means of the pressure and/or heat and/or steam treatment, the particles 110 of the expanded material may combine by slightly melting their surfaces; [0096]- heat may be supplied via electromagnetic induction); and
d) fusing the surfaces of the particles by supplying energy ([0091]- In certain embodiments, the particles 110 undergo chemical bonding by means of the pressure and/or heat and/or steam treatment; [0096]- heat may be supplied via electromagnetic induction)).
Wardlaw does not specify step e) wherein the mold is not heated during the pre-heating of the particles of the expanded material.
Coles teaches an alternative method of manufacturing a plastic component (Abstract) wherein heat is supplied via electromagnetic RF [0155]-[0157] and the mold is made of an RF-transparent material [0059] that does not heat up in an RF field [0200] in order to avoid unnecessary heating of the body of the mold [0212].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wardlaw to include a RF-transparent mold as taught by Coles with reasonable expectation of success to avoid unnecessary heating of the body of the mold [0212] thus meeting the instant limitation of the mold is not heated during the pre-heating of the particles of the expanded material;
wherein the mold is formed from a composite material [0212], the composite material comprising a matrix material ([0725]- the mold comprises one or more of ceramic, polymer, or glass) comprising a plastic material and bodies embedded therein [0725].
Regarding Claim 5, Coles further teaches the bodies embedded in the matrix material are particles ([0725]- discussing acceptable ceramics which can be provided as powders).
Regarding Claim 6, Coles further teaches the particles are spherical particles ([0725]- discussing examples of ceramics, specifically alumina; Examiner notes alumina can be supplied as spherical particles).
Regarding Claim 7, Coles further teaches the particles have a maximum size of 3 mm ([0725]- discussing examples of ceramics, specifically alumina; Examiner notes spherical alumina particles have an average particle size less than 65 μm).
Regarding Claim 8, Coles further teaches the bodies embedded in the matrix material are fibers ([0725]- discussing examples of ceramics, specifically mullite; Examiner notes mullite can be supplied as a fiber).
Regarding Claim 9, Coles further teaches the fibers have a maximum length of 20 mm (([0725]- discussing examples of ceramics, specifically mullite; Examiner notes mullite fibers are typically shorter than 20mm).
Regarding Claim 10, Coles further teaches the matrix material is made of a non-electrically conductive plastic material ([0205]-[0211]- discussing acceptable mold materials; [0725]- discussing polymers).
Regarding Claim 11, Coles further teaches the non-electrically conductive plastic material is an epoxy resin ([0725]- discussing polymers; Examiner notes epoxy is a polymer).
Regarding Claim 12, Coles further teaches the bodies embedded in the matrix material are completely embedded in the matrix material (Fig. 18- composite electrode structures 182; [0490]).
Regarding Claim 13, Coles further teaches the bodies embedded in the matrix material are dispersed in the matrix material so that at least most of the bodies are not in contact with each other (Fig. 18- composite electrode structures 182; [0490]).
Regarding Claim 14, Coles further teaches the bodies embedded in the matrix material are made of an electrically conductive material (Fig. 18- composite electrode structures 182; [0490]; Examiner notes electrodes are electrically conductive).
Regarding Claim 15, Coles further teaches the bodies embedded in the matrix comprise silica sand, a ceramic material, aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, glass granules, frit, silicon carbide, magnesium oxide, or combinations thereof ([0725]- discussing ceramics).
Regarding Claim 17, Coles further teaches the mold is coated with an insulating layer on an inside surface of the mold [0057].
Regarding Claim 18, Coles further teaches the insulating layer is formed from PTFE, PE, PEEK, or combinations thereof ([0726]- the second material may comprise polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or a material that has a loss factor similar or close to that of the polypropylene bead and a fluid mixture at the fusion temperature).
Regarding Claim 19, Coles teaches utilizing an insulating layer to heat the inner surface of the mold and provide a better surface finish [0211] but does not specify the insulating layer has a thickness from 2 to 20 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify thickness of the insulating layer to include a layer thickness between 2-20mm with reasonable expectation of success because a mere change in thickness is a matter of design choice that a skilled artisan would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(iv)(B).
Regarding Claim 20, Wardlaw further teaches the particles comprise at least one of: expanded thermoplastic polyurethane, eTPU; expanded polyamide, ePA; expanded polyetherblockamide, ePEBA; polylactide, PLA; polyether-block-amide, PEBA; polyethylene terephthalate, PET; polybutylene terephthalate, PBT; thermoplastic polyester ether elastomer, TPEE; polyether ketone, PEK; polyether ether ketone, PEEK; polyetherketoneketone, PEKK, polyethylene, PE, olefin co-block polymer, OBC; polyolefin elastomer, POE; polyethylene co-vinyl acetate, EVA; polybutylene, PB; polyisobutylene, PIB; polyoxymethylene, POM; polyvinylidene chloride, PVCD; polyvinyl alcohol, PVAL; polytetrafluoroethylene, PTFE; polyvinylidene fluoride, PVDF; tetrafluoroethylene, FEP; ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene, ETFE; polyvinylfluoride, PVF; perfluoroalkoxy, PFA, or combinations thereof [0057]; [0141].
Regarding Claim 21, Wardlaw further teaches the energy is supplied in the form of at least one electromagnetic field [0096].
Regarding Claim 22, Wardlaw further teaches the energy is supplied by a first electromagnetic field and a second electromagnetic field ([0096]- the energy is varied and at different frequencies in different areas), wherein the first electromagnetic field and the second electromagnetic field have different frequencies ([0096]- the energy is varied and at different frequencies in different areas) in order to influence different areas of the cushioning element within a single mold [0096] by controlling the temperatures in targeted areas to achieve a desired stiffness/cushioning after the element is cooled [0096]-[0099].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Coles and Wardlaw to include applying different electromagnetic frequencies to different regions of the mold as taught by Wardlaw with reasonable expectation of success to influence different areas of the cushioning element within a single mold [0096] by controlling the temperatures in targeted areas to achieve a desired stiffness/cushioning after the element is cooled [0096]-[0099].
Regarding Claim 23, Wardlaw further teaches the first electromagnetic field is applied to a first partial region of the mold and the second electromagnetic field is applied to a second partial region of the mold [0096].
Claims 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wardlaw et al (PGPub 2014/0223673 cited in IDS) in view of Coles et al (PGPub 2014/0243442 cited in IDS) and Metaverso (PGPub 2016/0311133).
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation of “the bodies embedded in the matrix material are fiber” is unpatentable as described above. In the alternative, if “the bodies embedded in the matrix material are fibers” is not sufficiently taught by Coles, Metaverso teaches an alternative composite bonding tool (Abstract) wherein the bodies embedded in the matrix material are fiber [0020] in order to add strength and toughness to the matrix [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Wardlaw and Coles to include fibers as taught by Metaverso with reasonable expectation of success to add strength and toughness to the matrix [0020].
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation of “the fibers have a maximum length of 20 mm” is unpatentable as described above. In the alternative, if “the fibers have a maximum length of 20 mm” is not sufficiently taught by Coles, Metaverso further teaches the use of glass, aramid, boron or silicon carbon fibers ([0020]; Examiner notes glass, aramid, boron or silicon carbon fibers are typically shorter than 20mm) thus meeting the instant limitation of the fibers have a maximum length of 20 mm.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitation of “the bodies embedded in the matrix comprise silica sand, a ceramic material, aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, glass granules, frit, silicon carbide, magnesium oxide” is unpatentable as described above. In the alternative, if “the bodies embedded in the matrix comprise silica sand, a ceramic material, aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, glass granules, frit, silicon carbide, magnesium oxide” is not sufficiently taught by Coles, Metaverso teaches an alternative composite bonding tool (Abstract) wherein the bodies embedded in the matrix material are glass, aramid, boron or silicon carbon fibers [0020] in order to add strength and toughness to the matrix [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Wardlaw and Coles to include glass, aramid, boron or silicon carbon fibers as taught by Metaverso with reasonable expectation of success to add strength and toughness to the matrix [0020] thus meeting the instant limitation of the bodies embedded in the matrix comprise silica sand, a ceramic material, aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, glass granules, frit, silicon carbide, magnesium oxide.
Regarding Claim 16, Coles further teaches the mould may preferably comprise glass [0725] but does not specify the bodies embedded in the matrix comprise glass fibers, carbon fibers, or combinations thereof.
Metaverso teaches an alternative composite bonding tool (Abstract) wherein the bodies embedded in the matrix comprise glass fibers, carbon fibers, or combinations thereof [0020] in order to add strength and toughness to the matrix [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Wardlaw and Coles to include glass fibers, carbon fiber, or combinations thereof as taught by Metaverso with reasonable expectation of success to add strength and toughness to the matrix [0020].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wardlaw et al (PGPub 2014/0223673 cited in IDS) in view of Coles et al (PGPub 2014/0243442 cited in IDS) and Nomura (US Pat. 5156754 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 11, the limitation of “the non-electrically conductive plastic material is an epoxy resin” is unpatentable as described above. In the alternative, if “the non-electrically conductive plastic material is an epoxy resin” is not sufficiently taught by Coles, Nomura teaches an alternative molding operation (Abstract) wherein the mold comprises an epoxy resin (Col. 1, Lines 7-14) because epoxy has easy shapability and good hardenability (Col. 1, Lines 16-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Wardlaw and Coles to include an epoxy resin as taught by Nomura with reasonable expectation of success for easy shapability and good hardenability (Col. 1, Lines 16-24).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wardlaw et al (PGPub 2014/0223673 cited in IDS) in view of Coles et al (PGPub 2014/0243442 cited in IDS) and Balchin et al (PGPub 2006/0279014).
Regarding Claim 18, the limitation of “the insulating layer is formed from PTFE, PE, PEEK, or combinations thereof” is unpatentable as described above. In the alternative, if “the insulating layer is formed from PTFE, PE, PEEK, or combinations thereof” is not sufficiently taught by Coles, Balchin teaches an alternative molding operation (Abstract) wherein the insulating layer is formed from PTFE, PE, PEEK, or combinations thereof ([0002]- PTFE as a non-stick coating) in order to make the mold non-stick [0002].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Wardlaw and Coles to include a PTFE lining as taught by Balchin with reasonable expectation of success to add strength and toughness to the matrix [0020].
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 Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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 USPTO Customer Service, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA/CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 9/10/26
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights