DETAILED ACTION
The present Application for Patent is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 18/153,324 to Lamsa, entitled “LOOP MOLD FOR WEARABLE DEVICE MANUFACTURING” filed Jan. 11, 2023, assigned to the assignee hereof, and expressly incorporated by reference herein.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/31/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 13, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takase (US 2004/0048416).
With respect to claim 1, Takase teaches a system for manufacturing (“the resin encapsulation molding apparatus shown in FIGS. 6 and 7”, Pa [0065]), comprising:
a housing member (“Intermediate mold 300”) comprising one or more cutouts (“a through hole”, Pa [0067]);
a deformable member (“release film 400”) configured to stretch in response to application of a force, the stretched deformable member configured to create axial tension across the one or more cutouts in the housing member (“When clamped, each of release film 400 applied with tension by a lower surface 200b of upper mold 100 and seal member 500 of upper mold 100 contact to the upper surface of intermediate mold 300.”, Pa [0067]); and
a stretching member (“Upper mold block 102, film holding member 103 and resilient member 104”, Pa [0066]) configured to apply the force to stretch the deformable member (“When clamped, each of release film 400 applied with tension by a lower surface 200 b of upper mold 100”, Pa [0067]).
It is noted that the limitation “a housing member of a wearable device” is an intended use since the intermediate mold 300 of Takase can be used as the housing member of a wearable device. 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).
With respect to claim 2, Takase as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the stretching member comprises one or more sets of arms (“Upper mold block 102, film holding member 103”) configured to move one or more vertical directions to apply the force (“a resilient member 104 that enables the slidable reciprocal movement of film holding member 103 in upward and downward direction.”, Pa [0066]).
With respect to claim 8, Takase as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the housing member is an inner housing member (“Intermediate mold 300”), and wherein the system further comprises: an outer housing member (“substrate 600”, Pa [0067]). It is noted that the limitation “an outer housing member of a wearable device, the outer housing member coupled with the inner housing member to form the wearable device.” is an intended use since the intermediate mold 300 and substrate 600 of Takase can be used as the housing member of a wearable device. 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).
With respect to claim 13, it is noted that the claimed limitation is an intended use since the apparatus of Takase is capable of performing the claimed operation. 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 16, Takase as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the deformable member comprises a deformable band (“release film 400”, Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 17, it is noted that the claimed limitation is an intended use since the product of Takase can be used to form a wearable ring device. 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).
With respect to claim 18, Takase teaches a system for manufacturing (“the resin encapsulation molding apparatus shown in FIGS. 6 and 7”, Pa [0065]), comprising:
a deformable member (“release film 400”) configured to stretch in response to application of a force, the stretched deformable member configured to create axial tension across the one or more cutouts in a housing member (“When clamped, each of release film 400 applied with tension by a lower surface 200b of upper mold 100 and seal member 500 of upper mold 100 contact to the upper surface of intermediate mold 300.”, Pa [0067]); and
a stretching member (“Upper mold block 102, film holding member 103 and resilient member 104”, Pa [0066]) configured to apply the force to stretch the deformable member (“When clamped, each of release film 400 applied with tension by a lower surface 200 b of upper mold 100”, Pa [0067]).
It is noted that the limitation “a housing member of a wearable device” is an intended use since the intermediate mold 300 of Takase can be used as the housing member of a wearable device. 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).
With respect to claim 20, Takase as applied to claim 18 above further teaches that the stretching member comprises one or more sets of arms (“Upper mold block 102, film holding member 103 and resilient member 104”) configured to move one or more vertical directions to apply the force (“a resilient member 104 that enables the slidable reciprocal movement of film holding member 103 in upward and downward direction.”, Pa [0066]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 11, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takase (US 2004/0048416) as applied to claims 1 and 18 above.
With respect to claims 11 and 19, Takase as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that a fillable material is injected through an opening in the wearable device such that the fillable material fills the one or more cutouts and contacts the deformable member (“a resin path 301 for injecting a resin material that is heated and molten into cavity 180 is provided to the upper surface of intermediate mold 300”, Pa [0067]), but is silent to an injection system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that Takase implies the injection system with the apparatus of Takase to inject a resin material into cavity 180. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to provide the injection system with the apparatus of Takase in order to inject a resin material into cavity 180.
With respect to claim 12, it is noted that the claimed limitation is an intended use since the apparatus of Takase is capable of performing the claimed operation. 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).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takase (US 2004/0048416) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above.
With respect to claims 3-5, Takase as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that each arm of the one or more sets of arms comprises a straight portion (Figs. 6, 7), but is silent to a curved portion. It would have been obvious to modify the shapes of upper mold block 102 and film holding member 103 according to the shape of the product-the encapsulated electronic part-in order to manufacture the desired shape of product.
With respect to claim 15, Takase as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the deformable member is positioned within an inner surface of the housing member such that a first end of the deformable member extends on a first side of the housing member and a second end of the deformable member extends on a second side of the housing member (Fig. 7), but is silent to an inner circumference of the housing member. It would have been obvious to modify the shape of Intermediate mold 300 according to the shape of the product-the encapsulated electronic part-in order to manufacture the desired shape of product.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takase (US 2004/0048416) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Meyer et al. (US 2016/0274621).
With respect to claim 14, Takase as applied to claim 12 above further teaches an electronic part (a semiconductor chip 700 and a wire 800) 110 positioned relative to the one or more cutouts (“a cavity (a through hole) 180”), wherein an electronic part is secured based at least in part on injection of the fillable material (“Intermediate mold 300 is provided with a cavity (a through hole) 180 that is provided to pass through intermediate mold 300 in a width direction and accommodating an electronic part (a semiconductor chip 700 and a wire 800) 110 attached to an upper surface of substrate 600 before provided with resin encapsulation. …a resin path 301 for injecting a resin material that is heated and molten into cavity 180 is provided to the upper surface of intermediate mold 300.”, Pa [0067]), but is silent to one or more sensors.
In the same field of endeavor, embed molding for a wearable electronic device, Meyer teaches that in a molded component 700 that may be included in a wearable electronic device, a die 140 may be embedded in the mold compound 144, and a “die” may be any component (e.g., a semiconductor device) in which one or more functional circuits are located, for example, one or more sensors (Pa [00058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of invention to modify Takase with the teachings of Meyer to substitute one or more sensors for the semiconductor chip in order to manufacture the desired wearable electronic device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 6, the prior art (Takase, US 2004/0048416), which was cited in the rejection, teaches the stretching member comprising one or more sets of arms (“Upper mold block 102, film holding member 103”) configured to move one or more vertical directions to apply the force (“a resilient member 104 that enables the slidable reciprocal movement of film holding member 103 in upward and downward direction.”, Pa [0066]), but does not explicitly teach that each set of arms of the one or more sets of arms comprises a first arm associated with a first curved portion and a second arm associated with a second curved portion, wherein the first arm is positioned above the second arm, and wherein the first curved portion mirrors the second curved portion.
With respect to claim 9, the prior art (Takase, US 2004/0048416), which was cited in the rejection, teaches that the housing member is an inner housing member (“Intermediate mold 300”), and wherein the system further comprises: an outer housing member (“substrate 600”, Pa [0067]), but does not explicitly teach that the outer housing member comprises one or more openings configured to allow fillable material to enter a cavity between the inner housing member and the outer housing member.
Conclusion
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 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 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.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights