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 .
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (6,652,983 B2) in view of Kornylo (US 5,571,355).
Regarding claim 1, Mori teach a method of producing a plastic molded part with an insert by injection molding (see Figures 2A – 3, 7 -8; col. 12 lines 26 – col. 37 lines 10), the method comprising:
inserting the insert into a first mold half of an injection mold (see Fig 2A – 2B item 4-insert on the movable mold 5 and 6 includes stationary mold for injection via gate 9; col 12 lines 45-65); forming an injection molding cavity by closing the first mold half with a second mold half (see specifically Fig. 3 a cavity formed when mold 5 and 6 are contacted each other; col 14 lines 50-67); fixing the insert to a contour surface of the first mold half by applying a vacuum on the contour surface (see Fig, 3 item 12 are vacuum suction holes; see col 14 lines 30-33), injecting a plastic compound into the injection molding cavity; and demolding the plastic molded part with the insert (see col 14 lines 65 to col 15 lines 65 disclose use of polypropylene resin on eh insert).
However, Mori teach fails to teach a band-shaped vacuum region; wherein the band-shaped vacuum region is formed by a linear vacuum slot extending in the contour surface and provided with transverse slots present in the contour surface.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining making composite articles, Kornylo teaches a band-shaped vacuum region (see Fig. 4 – 6 item 40-mold includes linear slot which extends to traverse slots 44 for vacuum suction of preform/insert);
PNG
media_image1.png
636
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs, 4- 6 Kornylo shows similar band-shaped vacuum region which includes longitudinal channel with transverse channel.
Kornylo further shows wherein the band-shaped vacuum region is formed by a linear vacuum slot extending in the contour surface and provided with transverse slots present in the contour surface (see Fig. 4-6; col 5 lines 5 to col 6 lines 8 lines 55). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art a the time of the Applicant’s effective filing of the invention to have modified the vacuum region as taught by Mori with including band-shaped vacuum region formed by a linear vacuum slot extending in the contour surface and provided with transverse slot, as taught by Kornylo, for the benefit of sufficiently distributing vacuum force (see col. 7 lines 1-15), thereby obtaining a composite structure having intimately bonded (insert) within the structure (see col 7 lines 1-15), for producing quality product (see col. 2 lines 50-65).
As for claim 2, Kornylo further teaches wherein the transverse slots extend away only from one side of the linear vacuum slot (Figs, 4-6 as shown above).
As for claim 3, Kornylo further teaches wherein the transverse slots extend away only from one side of the linear vacuum slot (Figs, 4-6 as shown above), however, fails to teach having the transverse slots extending both sides of the linear vacuum slot. It would have been obvious duplication of parts for purpose of sucking both sides of the preform, during injection molding, for the purpose of retaining the preform in position based on the shape of the article being formed. Also see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
As for claims 6 - 9, Mori and Kornylo teaches all the limitation as claimed wherein the transverse slots communicate with a vacuum channel extending below the transverse slots (Figs 4-6 above); however, fails to explicitly teach wherein a length of the transverse slots is equal to or less than 10 mm; wherein a distance between adjacent transverse slots of the transverse slots is equal to or less than 20 mm; wherein a slot width of at least one of the linear vacuum slot or the transverse slots is equal to or less than 0.1 mm. It would have been obvious to modify the dimensions of the transverse slots and distance between adjacent slots, and width of the linear vacuum slots, for providing desired functional benefit of suction force. Additionally, Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Regarding claim 11, Mori teach a method of producing a plastic molded part with an insert by injection molding (see Figures 2A – 3, 7 -8; col. 12 lines 26 – col. 37 lines 10), the method comprising:
inserting the insert into a first mold half of an injection mold (see Fig 2A – 2B item 4-insert on the movable mold 5 and 6 includes stationary mold for injection via gate 9; col 12 lines 45-65); forming an injection molding cavity by closing the first mold half with a second mold half (see specifically Fig. 3 a cavity formed when mold 5 and 6 are contacted each other; col 14 lines 50-67); fixing the insert to a contour surface of the first mold half by applying a vacuum on the contour surface (see Fig, 3 item 12 are vacuum suction holes; see col 14 lines 30-33), injecting a plastic compound into the injection molding cavity; and demolding the plastic molded part with the insert (see col 14 lines 65 to col 15 lines 65 disclose use of polypropylene resin on eh insert).
However, Mori teach fails to teach a band-shaped vacuum region; wherein the band-shaped vacuum region is formed by a linear vacuum slot extending in the contour surface and provided with transverse slots present in the contour surface.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining making composite articles, Kornylo teaches a band-shaped vacuum region (see Fig. 4 – 6 item 40-mold includes linear slot which extends to traverse slots 44 for vacuum suction of preform/insert); Kornylo further shows wherein the band-shaped vacuum region is formed by a linear vacuum slot extending in the contour surface and provided with transverse slots present in the contour surface (see Fig. 4-6; col 5 lines 5 to col 6 lines 8 lines 55).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the Applicant’s effective filing of the invention to have modified the vacuum region as taught by Mori with including band-shaped vacuum region formed by a linear vacuum slot extending in the contour surface and provided with transverse slot, as taught by Kornylo, for the benefit of sufficiently distributing vacuum force (see col. 7 lines 1-15), thereby obtaining a composite structure having intimately bonded (insert) within the structure (see col 7 lines 1-15), for producing quality product (see col. 2 lines 50-65).
However, Kornylo fails to explicitly teach the band-shaped vacuum region is formed by a vacuum slot with an oscillating line path provided in the contour surface. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the shape of the vacuum slots, based on the required forces on the preform, thereby holding the preform in desired location. Also see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). In the case, the change is shape would have been obvious modification as one skilled in the art can modify such direction of the slots to compensate where vacuum force is required.
As for claims 12-16, Mori and Kornylo fails to explicitly teach wherein the oscillating line path is realized without kinks or transverse slots at least in some areas; wherein the oscillating line path is realized at least in some areas as a multi-curved, serpentine, wavy, meandering or polygonal line with rounded corners; wherein an amplitude of the oscillating line path is equal to or greater than 1 mm; wherein an average period of the oscillating line path is equal to or less than 20 mm; wherein a slot width of the vacuum slot is equal to or less than 0.1 mm.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the shape of the vacuum slots, based on the required forces on the preform, thereby holding the preform in desired location. Also see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). In the case, the change is shape would have been obvious modification as one skilled in the art can modify such direction of the slots to compensate where vacuum force is required.
It would have been obvious to modify the dimensions of the transverse slots and distance between adjacent slots, and width of the linear vacuum slots, for providing desired functional benefit of suction force. Additionally, Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (6,652,983 B2) in view of Kornylo (US 5,571,355) in further view of either one of Butler et al. (US 6,660,115 B2) or Meegan et al. (US 2011/0151232 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 18-20, Mori teach a method of producing a plastic molded part with an insert by injection molding (see Figures 2A – 3, 7 -8; col. 12 lines 26 – col. 37 lines 10), the method comprising:
inserting the insert into a first mold half of an injection mold (see Fig 2A – 2B item 4-insert on the movable mold 5 and 6 includes stationary mold for injection via gate 9; col 12 lines 45-65); forming an injection molding cavity by closing the first mold half with a second mold half (see specifically Fig. 3 a cavity formed when mold 5 and 6 are contacted each other; col 14 lines 50-67); fixing the insert to a contour surface of the first mold half by applying a vacuum on the contour surface (see Fig, 3 item 12 are vacuum suction holes; see col 14 lines 30-33), injecting a plastic compound into the injection molding cavity; and demolding the plastic molded part with the insert (see col 14 lines 65 to col 15 lines 65 disclose use of polypropylene resin on eh insert).
However, Mori teach fails to teach a band-shaped vacuum region; wherein the band-shaped vacuum region is formed by a linear vacuum slot extending in the contour surface and provided with transverse slots present in the contour surface.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining making composite articles, Kornylo teaches a band-shaped vacuum region (see Fig. 4 – 6 item 40-mold includes linear slot which extends to traverse slots 44 for vacuum suction of preform/insert). Kornylo further shows wherein the band-shaped vacuum region is formed by a linear vacuum slot extending in the contour surface and provided with transverse slots present in the contour surface (see Fig. 4-6; col 5 lines 5 to col 6 lines 8 lines 55). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art a the time of the Applicant’s effective filing of the invention to have modified the vacuum region as taught by Mori with including band-shaped vacuum region formed by a linear vacuum slot extending in the contour surface and provided with transverse slot, as taught by Kornylo, for the benefit of sufficiently distributing vacuum force (see col. 7 lines 1-15), thereby obtaining a composite structure having intimately bonded (insert) within the structure (see col 7 lines 1-15), for producing quality product (see col. 2 lines 50-65).
However, Mori and Kornylo fail to teach wherein during or before cooling phase of the plastic compound prior to the plastic compound being solidified, the vacuum is switched to an overpressure; wherein the vacuum is switched to the overpressure during or before a holding pressure phase of the injection molding; wherein the vacuum is switched to the overpressure before the injection molding cavity is completely filled when the plastic compound is injected.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to forming composite, Butler et al. method of manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite using fibers comprising the steps of: (a) forming a slurry comprising a ceramic sol, filler material and a suspension medium, (b) forming a plurality of laminates of the fibers, (c) applying the slurry to each of the plurality of laminates of fibers, (d) stacking the plurality of laminates of fibers on a mold, (e) applying pressure to the stack of laminates of fibers at a low temperature to remove the suspension medium from the slurry to solidify the ceramic sol and thereby produce a ceramic matrix composite, (f) pressure less sintering the ceramic matrix composite at a high temperature and at atmospheric pressure wherein step (e) further comprises covering the stack with a porous membrane, covering the porous membrane with a breather fabric, covering the breather fabric with a vacuum bag and evacuating the vacuum bag to remove the suspension medium from the slurry to solidify the ceramic sol and thereby produce the ceramic matrix composite, and heating the stack during or after evacuation of the vacuum bag to encourage the solidification of the ceramic sol (see claim 7).
Also, in the same field of endeavor, Meegan et al. teach the general concept in LRI technology involves infusing resins into a fiber reinforcement, fabric or a pre-shaped fibrous reinforcement ("preform") by placing the material or preform into a mold (two-component mold or single-sided mold) and then injecting resin under high pressure (or ambient pressure) into the mold cavity or vacuum bag sealed single-sided mold. The resin infuses into the material or preform resulting in a fiber-reinforced composite structure. LRI technology is especially useful in manufacturing complex-shaped structures which are otherwise difficult to manufacture using conventional technologies ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was made to modify above with further having application of pressure or high pressure, as taught by Butler et al. or Meegan et al. for the benefit of either removing suspension medium to solidify the composite structure or to form the composite structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 – 5 and 17 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. Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art Mori (6,652,983 B2) in view of Kornylo (US 5,571,355), fails to teach wherein the first mold half comprises a receptacle and a mold insert arranged in the receptacle, the linear vacuum slot is delimited by a side wall of the mold insert and the transverse slots running in the mold insert open into the linear vacuum slot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 12,428,349 B2 and US 12,215,062 B2 discloses application of pressure during vacuum forming of plies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights