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 Amendment
The Amendments filed 07/22/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 04/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5 and 9 have been amended. Claims 2 and 4 have been canceled. Claim 13 maintains withdrawn. Claims 1, 3 and 5-13 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102 have been fully considered. Due to the amendments, the rejection of claim 1 under 102 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Sacchi's alternative embodiment relies on a single, unified shuttle (19) carrying both pairs of forks (40A, 40B) simultaneously. See FIG. 18 and paragraphs [0106]-[0107] of Sacchi. Sacchi does not teach or suggest splitting the loading and unloading functions into two physically separated stations on the production line. To modify Sacchi's single-shuttle system into our spatially separated, dual-station configuration would require a complete redesign of Sacchi's control synchronization, track layout, and physical shuttle architecture. Therefore, Sacchi fails to teach this structural separation.” (pages 6-7)
These arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
Sacchi teaches that the shuttle 19 is also provided with means for gripping and translating the individual presses 12; in particular, from FIGS. 4 and 5 it can be seen that the shuttle 19 is provided with two telescopic forks 4 (Pa [0073]), and in the case of FIG. 18, the pair of forks 40A is aligned with the press 12A to be removed, while the new press 12B is already prepared on the pair of forks 40B in the forward position with respect to the press 12A (Pa [0107]). Namely, Sacchi teaches the cart loading/unloading part (“the shuttle 19”) comprising a loading-side cart loading/unloading part (“the pair of forks 40B”) configured to load the mold cart onto the upper portion of the mold carrier; and an unloading-side cart loading/unloading part (“the pair of forks 40A”) configured to unload the mold cart loaded onto the mold carrier.
Applicant further argues that “Sacchi's shuttle (19) rotates passively because its caster wheels (35) follow the physical curvature of the guide rails (20). See paragraph [0071] of Sacchi. There is no active rotational drive on Sacchi's shuttle that rotates the forks (40) relative to the shuttle frame (34).” (page 7)
These arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
The claim does not require an active rotational drive part on the cart loading/unloading part that rotates the cart transfer device relative to any frame therebelow. Sacchi teaches that the shuttle 19 is moved by an electric motor 36 connected to a gear wheel 37 which engages with a positive drive belt 38 secured at its two ends, which extends along the subsidiary path defined by the guide rails 20 (Pa [0071]). Namely, Sacchi’s shuttle 19 comprises an electric motor 36, a gear wheel 37, and a positive drive belt 38 configured to rotate the shuttle 19 along the guide rails 20 (Fig. 6).
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 1, 3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sacchi et al. (US 2009/0171497-of record).
With respect to claim 1, Sacchi teaches a circulating-type molded article manufacturing device (“a plant for the manufacture of molded articles from plastic material, for example polyurethane material”, Pa [0054] and Fig. 1) comprising:
a circulation conveyance part (“US line 18”) configured to circulate along a production line (“a processing line 10 which extends along a closed molding path”, Pa [0055]);
a mold carrier (“carriage 11”) connected to the circulation conveyance part and configured to circulate along the production line (“The carriages 11 are mechanically connected to one another, and some of them are provided with a drive motor 17 powered by US line 18 along the entire path 14.”, Pa [0057]), the mold carrier being configured to load thereon or unload therefrom a mold cart, the mold cart having a molded article manufacturing mold mounted thereon (“a plurality of carriages 11 move, each supporting a press 12 designed to clamp a mold 13.”, Pa [0055]); and
a cart loading/unloading part (“a press transfer shuttle 19 for gripping and removing a press 12”, Pa [0059]) configured to load the mold cart onto an upper portion of the mold carrier or unload the mold cart from the upper portion of the mold carrier (“a system for rapidly changing the presses 11 and/or the molds 12”, Pa [0058]),
wherein the cart loading/unloading part (“a press transfer shuttle 19”) comprises:
a cart transfer device (the structures above “a base frame 34”) configured to lift the mold cart;
at least one of an X-axis drive part or a Y-axis drive part, the X-axis drive part being configured to transfer the cart transfer device in an X-axis direction, the Y-axis drive part being configured to transfer the cart transfer device in a Y-axis direction; and a rotation drive part configured to rotate the cart transfer device (“The shuttle 19 is moved by an electric motor 36 connected to a gear wheel 37 which engages with a positive drive belt 38 secured at its two ends, which extends along the subsidiary path defined by the guide rails 20”, Pa [0071]).
In another embodiment, Sacchi further teaches that the cart loading/unloading part (“a press transfer shuttle 19”) comprises a loading-side cart loading/unloading part (“the pair of forks 40B”) configured to load the mold cart onto the upper portion of the mold carrier and an unloading-side cart loading/unloading part (“the pair of forks 40A”) configured to unload the mold cart loaded onto the mold carrier (“In the case of FIG. 18, the pair of forks 40A is aligned with the press 12A to be removed, while the new press 12B is already prepared on the pair of forks 40B in the forward position with respect to the press 12A.”, Pa [0107]).
It is noted that the limitation “foam-molded article manufacturing” is an intended used since the apparatus of Sacchi is capable of manufacturing the claimed article. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 3, Sacchi as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that a wheel (“a driving wheel”) is disposed on a lower portion of the mold carrier (“several of the carriages 11 are provided with a driving motor 17 operatively connected to a driving wheel”, Pa [0068]), and the mold carrier is configured to move, by the wheel, on an upper portion of a circulation rail disposed on a floor outside the circulation conveyance part (“The carriages 11 move, for example, along a guide rail 14”, Pa [0056]).
With respect to claim 5, Sacchi as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the cart transfer device comprises a lifting fork (“the sliding parts 40.2 of both the forks 40”, Pa [0073]) configured to support a lower surface of the mold cart (“the shuttle 19 extends the forks 40, step S4, positioning them underneath the press 12”, Pa [0096]).
With respect to claim 6, Sacchi as applied to claim 5 above further teaches that the cart transfer device comprises: a drive bar (“a stationary portion 40.1”, Pa [0073]) connected to the lifting fork to raise or lower the lifting fork; a drive link (“a beam 43”, Pa [0074]) configured to raise or lower the drive bar; and a link drive part (“actuators 44”) connected to one side of the drive link and configured to operate the drive link (“the beam 43 in turn is supported by actuators 44 for example electric or other types of actuators, to raise and lower the forks 40 in a controlled manner.”, Pa [0074]).
With respect to claim 7, Sacchi as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the mold carrier comprises: a carrier frame (“a substantially C-shaped frame”, Pa [0067]) having a lower portion on which a wheel is disposed (“several of the carriages 11 are provided with a driving motor 17 operatively connected to a driving wheel.”, Pa [0068]); and a first cart support and a second cart support (“two uprights 11″), each being disposed on an upper portion of the carrier frame and disposed to support the mold cart (“two uprights 11″ defining the seat for a pin 24 secured to a bracket at the rear side of the press 12”, Pa [0067]).
With respect to claim 8, Sacchi as applied to claim 7 above further teaches that the first cart support has a first coupling groove (“the seat”) having a first groove shape (Fig. 3), a first coupling portion (“a pin 24 secured to a bracket”) having a first bar shape is disposed on a lower portion of the mold cart and spans the first coupling groove (“the carriage 11 is provided with two uprights 11″ defining the seat for a pin 24 secured to a bracket at the rear side of the press 12”, Pa [0067] and Fig. 3), the second cart support has a second coupling groove (“the seat”) having a second groove shape (Fig. 3), and a second coupling portion (“a pin 24 secured to a bracket”) having a second bar shape is disposed on the lower portion of the mold cart and spans the second coupling groove (“the carriage 11 is provided with two uprights 11″ defining the seat for a pin 24 secured to a bracket at the rear side of the press 12”, Pa [0067] and Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 9, Sacchi as applied to claim 8 above does not explicitly teach that at least one of the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion has conical shapes having cross-sections expanding from two opposite sides of a center bar of the at least one of the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion. However, one would have found it obvious to change the shape of the pin 24 secured to a bracket at the rear side of the press 12 in order to support the press by the carriage, since it has been held that The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With respect to claim 10, Sacchi as applied to claim 8 above further teaches a buffer support part configured to support a lower surface of the mold cart (“an overturnable collapsible arm 25 hinged at 26 to the frame of the carriage 11, supports the press 12 along the path 14 (Pa [0067]), but does not teach a first buffer support part and a second buffer support part. One would have found it obvious to duplicate the arm 25 in order to support the press 12 along the path 14, since it has been held that A mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to claim 11, Sacchi as applied to claim 7 above further teaches that the mold carrier has a first connecting part configured to supply power, air, or hot water to the mold cart, the mold cart has a second connecting part configured to be connected to the first connecting part, and the second connecting part is configured to be connected to the first connecting part when the mold cart is loaded onto the mold carrier (“each carriage 11 and each press 12 are provided with plates 28 and 29 having special connectors, not shown, which allow the connection to electric and/or pneumatic power sources with which the carriages can be provided, and their connection and disconnection by a simple vertical movement of raising and lowering the presses 12.”, Pa [0068]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sacchi et al. (US 2009/0171497) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Blower et al. (US 4,261,413) (All of record).
With respect to claim 12, Sacchi as applied to claim 11 above does not explicitly teach that an alignment pin protrudes from the first connecting part, and an alignment pin through-hole is defined in the second connecting part to insert therein the alignment pin.
In the same field of endeavor, in-line molding system, Blower teaches that each flange is provided with a centrally located guide bushing as seen at 364 and 365 to receive guide pins, hereinafter described, projecting from the cope when the flasks are closed, such guide bushings may also be employed with guide pins for alignment purposes during the molding operation (co 12 li 65-co 13 li 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sacchi with the teachings of Blower to provide with guide bushing and guide pin with plates 28 and 29 of the carriage 11 and the press 12, respectively, for the purpose of alignment purposed therebetween.
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 YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights