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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to for the following informalities:
“the plurality of pair heaters comprise a first pair heater and a second part heater” should read “the plurality of pair heaters comprise a first pair heater and a second pair heater.” (emphasis added)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramoto (JP-2005116539) in view of Kamimura (JP-2015116712), using the attached original document and translation.
Regarding claim 1, Muramoto teaches:
A melting heater configured to melt joining end surfaces of a pair of semi-molded products in a case where the joining end surfaces are melted and joined to manufacture a molded product ([0001] and [0007] – [0012] and [0026]; Fig. 1, H), the melting heater comprising:
a plurality of element heaters arranged in a unit having a flat plate shape ([0009] – [0010] and [0026] – [0028]; Fig. 2, #2),
wherein the plurality of element heaters comprises a plurality of pair heaters, each pair heater being two adjacent element heaters of the plurality of element heaters ([0026] – [0028]; Fig. 2, #2), and
wherein each pair heater comprises:
a first end portion in which first ends of the adjacent two of the plurality of element heaters are connected to each other so as to be connected in series ([0026] – [0028]; Fig. 2, #1A and #2); and
a second end portion in which second ends of the adjacent two of the plurality of element heaters are spaced apart and connected to a power supply ([0028]; Fig. 2, #13).
Muramoto does not teach:
the plurality of pair heaters comprise a first pair heater and a second part heater, the plurality of element heaters of the first pair heater and the plurality of element heaters of the second pair heater are aligned with respect to each other.
However, Kamimura (JP-2015116712), in a similar field of endeavor, a melting heater configured to melt joining end surfaces of a pair of semi-molded products, teaches:
the plurality of pair heaters comprise a first pair heater and a second part heater, the plurality of element heaters of the first pair heater and the plurality of element heaters of the second pair heater are aligned with respect to each other ([0009] – [0012] and [0018]; Fig. 4, #15a and #15b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pair heaters of Muramoto to incorporate the teachings of Kamimura and include parallel sets of pair heaters. The purpose, as stated by Kamimura, being to provide a method and apparatus for manufacturing hollow molded products that can manufacture hollow molded products in a mold, can manufacture hollow molded products even if ribs or walls are formed inside without being restricted by the shape of the hollow molded product, and can easily accommodate changes in the shape of the joint end face ([0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Muramoto in view of Kamimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Muramoto further teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of element heaters has a linear shape (Fig. 2, #1A and #2),
wherein the plurality of element heaters is arranged in parallel to each other (Fig. 2, #1A and #2),
wherein the power supply is connected to each second end portion of the plurality of element heaters ([0028]; Fig. 2, #13), and
wherein the power supply is configured to selectively supply power to each second end portion of each pair heater ([0028]; Fig. 2, #13).
Regarding claim 5, Muramoto in view of Kamimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on. Muramoto further teaches:
wherein the plurality of element heaters are arranged in a planar layer (Fig. 2, #1A and #2).
Claims 4, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramoto (JP-2005116539) in view of Kamimura (JP-2015116712), using the attached original document and translation.
Regarding claim 4, Muramoto in view of Kamimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on. Muramoto further teaches:
wherein the plurality of element heaters are each configured to individually control energization for each pair heater. While Muramoto is silent as to whether the plurality of element heaters are configured to individually control energization, it does describe each pair element heater being connected individually to power ([0028]; Fig. 2, #13) and therefore the device of Muramoto is capable of performing the method limitation of individual control energization for each pair heater, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, Muramoto in view of Kamimura teaches the limitations of claim 4, which claim 11 depends on. Muramoto further teaches:
wherein the plurality of element heaters are arranged in a planar layer (Fig. 2, #1A and #2).
Regarding claim 12, Muramoto in view of Kamimura teaches the limitations of claim 4, which claim 12 depends on. Muramoto further teaches:
wherein based on a shape of the molded product, the plurality of element heaters are each configured to individually control energization for each pair heater to be heated simultaneously. While Muramoto is silent as to whether the plurality of element heaters are configured to be energized simultaneously, it does describe each pair element heater being connected individually to power ([0028]; Fig. 2, #13) and therefore the device of Muramoto is capable of performing the method limitation of simultaneous energization, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13, Muramoto in view of Kamimura teaches the limitations of claim 4, which claim 13 depends on. Muramoto further teaches:
wherein based on a shape of the molded product, some the plurality of element heaters are each configured to individually control energization for some of the plurality of pair heaters. While Muramoto is silent as to selective control of the energization of the plurality of heaters, it does describe each pair element heater being connected individually to power ([0028]; Fig. 2, #13) and therefore the device of Muramoto is capable of performing the method limitation of basing the energization of the plurality of pair heaters based on the shape of a molded product, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 14, Muramoto in view of Kamimura teaches the limitations of claim 4, which claim 14 depends on. Muramoto further teaches:
wherein the plurality of heaters are configured to adjust an output of the energization for each pair heater. While Muramoto is silent as to the specific energization of the pair heaters, it does describe each pair element heater being connected individually to power ([0028]; Fig. 2, #13) and therefore the device of Muramoto is capable of performing the method limitation of adjusting the output of the energization for each pair heater, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Claims 3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramoto (JP-2005116539) in view of Kamimura (JP-2015116712), as applied to claim 1, independently, and claim 3, respectively, using the attached original document and translation.
Regarding claim 3, Muramoto in view of Kamimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on. Muramoto further teaches:
wherein the plurality of element heaters are fixed to a frame body ([0026] – [0029]; Fig. 2, #1).
Muramoto does not teach:
the frame body is connected to a drive mechanism.
However, Yamamoto, in a similar field of endeavor, a molding apparatus with a melting heater, teaches:
the frame body ([0018]; Fig. 3, #38) is connected to a drive mechanism ([0018]; Fig. 3, #39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heater frame body of Muramoto in view of Kamimura to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto and connect it to a drive mechanism. The purpose, as stated by Yamamoto, being that it drives the heater in a sliding manner back and forth ([0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Muramoto teaches:
A method for manufacturing a molded product using a melting heater ([0001] and [0007] – [0012] and [0026]; Fig. 1, H) including a plurality of element heaters arranged in a unit having a flat plate shape ([0009] – [0010] and [0026] – [0028]; Fig. 2, #2), the plurality of element heaters comprises a plurality of pair heaters, each pair heater being two adjacent element heaters of the plurality of element heaters ([0026] – [0028]; Fig. 2, #2), each pair heater comprises a first end portion in which first ends of the adjacent two of the plurality of element heaters are connected to each other so as to be connected in series ([0026] – [0028]; Fig. 2, #1A and #2), and a second end portion in which second ends of the adjacent two of the plurality of element heaters are spaced apart and connected to a power supply ([0028]; Fig. 2, #13).
Muramoto does not explicitly teach:
the plurality of pair heaters comprising a first pair heater and a second part heater, the plurality of element heaters of the first pair heater and of the second pair heater being aligned with respect to each other; and
the method comprising:
molding a pair of semi-molded products by a pair of molds;
leaving one semi-molded product in one mold and leaving the other semi-molded product in the other mold;
bringing joining end surfaces of the pair of semi-molded products close to each other and causing the joining end surfaces to face each other;
inserting the melting heater between the joining end surfaces of the pair of semi-molded products in a non-contact manner to melt the joining end surfaces; and
retracting the melting heater, closing the molds, and pressure-bonding the joining end surfaces to each other.
However, Kamimura (JP-2015116712), in a similar field of endeavor, a method for manufacturing a product using melting heater configured to melt joining end surfaces of a pair of semi-molded products, teaches:
the plurality of pair heaters comprise a first pair heater and a second part heater, the plurality of element heaters of the first pair heater and the plurality of element heaters of the second pair heater are aligned with respect to each other ([0009] – [0012] and [0018]; Fig. 4, #15a and #15b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pair heaters of Muramoto to incorporate the teachings of Kamimura and include parallel sets of pair heaters. The purpose, as stated by Kamimura, being to provide a method and apparatus for manufacturing hollow molded products that can manufacture hollow molded products in a mold, can manufacture hollow molded products even if ribs or walls are formed inside without being restricted by the shape of the hollow molded product, and can easily accommodate changes in the shape of the joint end face ([0008]).
Muramoto in view of Kamimura does not explicitly teach:
the method comprising:
molding a pair of semi-molded products by a pair of molds;
leaving one semi-molded product in one mold and leaving the other semi-molded product in the other mold;
bringing joining end surfaces of the pair of semi-molded products close to each other and causing the joining end surfaces to face each other;
inserting the melting heater between the joining end surfaces of the pair of semi-molded products in a non-contact manner to melt the joining end surfaces; and
retracting the melting heater, closing the molds, and pressure-bonding the joining end surfaces to each other.
However, Yamamoto, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for manufacturing a molded product using a melting heater, teaches:
the method comprising:
molding a pair of semi-molded products by a pair of molds ([0011] and [0019]; Fig. 2, #31 and #34);
leaving one semi-molded product in one mold and leaving the other semi-molded product in the other mold ([0018] – [0021]; Figs. 2, 4, and 5);
bringing joining end surfaces of the pair of semi-molded products close to each other and causing the joining end surfaces to face each other ([0018] – [0021]; Figs. 4-5);
inserting the melting heater between the joining end surfaces of the pair of semi-molded products in a non-contact manner to melt the joining end surfaces ([0018] – [0021]; Figs. 4-5, #38); and
retracting the melting heater, closing the molds, and pressure-bonding the joining end surfaces to each other ([0018] – [0021]; Figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Muramoto in view of Kamimura to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto and include specific method steps for molding the product using the melting heater. The purpose, as stated by Yamamoto, being to provide a heater unit that is optimal as a heater unit ([0007]).
Regarding claim 7, Muramoto in view of Kamimura and Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 6, which claim 7 depends on. Muramoto further teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of element heaters of the melting heater has a linear shape (Fig. 2, #1A and #2), and
wherein the plurality of element heaters of the melting heater is arranged in parallel each other (Fig. 2, #1A and #2),
wherein the power supply is connected to each second end portion of the plurality of element heaters ([0028]; Fig. 2, #13), and
wherein the method further comprises selectively supplying power to each second end portion of each pair heater ([0028]; Fig. 2, #13).
Regarding claim 8, Muramoto in view of Kamimura and Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 6, which claim 8 depends on. Muramoto further teaches:
wherein the plurality of element heaters of the melting heater are fixed to a frame body ([0026] – [0029]; Fig. 2, #1) that is connected to a drive mechanism.
Muramoto does not teach:
the frame body is connected to a drive mechanism.
However, Yamamoto further teaches:
the frame body ([0018]; Fig. 3, #38) is connected to a drive mechanism ([0018]; Fig. 3, #39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heater frame body of Muramoto in view of Kamimura and Yamamoto to further incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto and connect it to a drive mechanism. The purpose, as stated by Yamamoto, being that it drives the heater in a sliding manner back and forth ([0018]).
Regarding claim 9, Muramoto in view of Kamimura and Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 3, which claim 9 depends on. Muramoto further teaches:
wherein the plurality of element heaters are each configured to individually control energization for each pair heater. While Muramoto is silent as to whether the plurality of element heaters are configured to individually control energization, it does describe each pair element heater being connected individually to power ([0028]; Fig. 2, #13) and therefore the device of Muramoto is capable of performing the method limitation of individual control energization for each pair heater, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, Muramoto in view of Kamimura and Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 3, which claim 10 depends on. Muramoto further teaches:
wherein the plurality of element heaters are arranged in a planar layer (Fig. 2, #1A and #2).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramoto (JP-2005116539) in view of Kamimura (JP-2015116712), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujii (US-20160052203) using the attached original document and translation.
Regarding claim 15, Muramoto in view of Kamimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 15 depends on, but does not explicitly teach selectively supplying power to only a subset of the plurality of pair heaters. However, Fujii, in a similar field of endeavor, a melting heater configured to melt joining end surfaces of a pair of semi-molded products, teaches:
wherein, based on a shape of the molded product, the power supply is configured to selectively supply power to only a selected subset of the plurality of pair heaters so that the selected subset of the plurality of pair heaters melts a corresponding portion of the joining end surfaces while at least one non-selected pair heater of the plurality of pair heaters is not energized ([0052] – [0053]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when looking at the heater pairs for Muramoto which are independently connected to power (Muramoto; [0028]; Fig. 2, #13) combined with the teaching of Fujii of selectively heating different parts of the heating device in order to heat portions of the molded product, to teach the limitation of this claim in the absence of a showing of unexpected results. The purpose, stated by Fujii, being that desired portions of the lower mold and the upper mold can be selectively heated to a molding temperature ([0052]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramoto (JP-2005116539) in view of Kamimura (JP-2015116712) and Yamamoto (JP-2019155775), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Fujii (US-20160052203) using the attached original document and translation.
Regarding claim 16, Muramoto in view of Kamimura and Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 6, which claim 16 depends on, but does not explicitly teach selectively supplying power to only a subset of the plurality of pair heaters. However, Fujii, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for molding a product using a melting heater, teaches:
Wherein melting the joining end surfaces comprises, based on a shape of the molded product, selectively supplying power to only a selected subset of the plurality of pair heaters so that the selected subset of the plurality of pair heaters melts a corresponding portion of the joining end surfaces while at least one non-selected pair heater of the plurality of pair heaters is not energized ([0052] – [0053]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when looking at the heater pairs for Muramoto which are independently connected to power (Muramoto; [0028]; Fig. 2, #13) combined with the teaching of Fujii of selectively heating different parts of the heating device in order to heat portions of the molded product, to teach the limitation of this claim in the absence of a showing of unexpected results. The purpose, stated by Fujii, being that desired portions of the lower mold and the upper mold can be selectively heated to a molding temperature ([0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 07/28/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 6 under Muramoto (JP-2005116539), and Muramoto (JP-2005116539) in view of Yamamoto (JP-2019155775), respectively, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Muramoto (JP-2005116539) in view of Kamimura (JP-2015116712), and Muramoto (JP-2005116539) in view of Kamimura (JP-2015116712) and Yamamoto (JP-2019155775).
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 Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
