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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20150125465A, herein referred to as ‘465 in view of Wang (US 2016/0075099 A1).
Regarding claim 1, ‘465 discloses a mold apparatus for manufacturing a door having an opening by shearing a door intermediate product, the mold apparatus comprising: a lower mold (10b) to correspond to the door intermediate product; and an upper mold (10a), to correspond to the door intermediate product, to be positioned above the lower mold, wherein the upper mold comprises: a guide plate (14), including an insertion hole (20), configured to guide a movement of the blade along a horizontal direction;
and a presser (70) including a push protrusion, configured to move along one direction perpendicular to the horizontal direction through the insertion hole, wherein the push protrusion (72) protrudes from a side surface of the presser to push the guide plate along the horizontal direction as the presser moves along the one direction
‘465 does not explicitly disclose a blade extending along a side surface of the door intermediate product to cut a side surface of the door intermediate product. However, analogous molding art, Wang, depicts a blade (5) extending from the upper mold (see figures 1-2) for the benefit of cutting pressing at the same time [0005].
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses a blade (5). As for the insertable into the door intermediate product to cute the side surface of the door intermediate product, MPEP 2144.04 discloses Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the blade since it is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches wherein the upper mold further includes a connecting plate (50) coupled to the blade (5) and configured to move the blade along the horizontal direction in response to the guide plate being moved along the horizontal direction [0020].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20150125465A, herein referred to as ‘465 in view of Wang (US 2016/0075099 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of KR100624375B1, herein referred to ‘375.
Regarding claim 2, ‘465 does not explicitly disclose wherein the side surface of the presser is a first side surface facing a first direction along a horizontal direction and the presser includes a second side surface facing a second direction along a horizontal direction different from the first direction, and the push protrusion is a first push protrusion formed on the first side surface and the presser includes a second push protrusion on the second side surface at a height different from a height of the first push protrusion. Analogous art, ‘375, depicts wherein the side surface of the presser is a first side surface facing a first direction along a horizontal direction and the presser includes a second side surface facing a second direction along a horizontal direction different from the first direction (44) and the push protrusion is a first push protrusion (22) formed on the first side surface and the presser includes a second push protrusion(24) on the second side surface at a height different from a height of the first push protrusion (see figures 4a and 4b).
Claim(s) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20150125465A, herein referred to as ‘465 in view of Wang (US 2016/0075099 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Zhou (US 2017/0232650 A1).
Regarding claim 3, ‘465 depicts the upper mold further includes an interference member (310) between the presser and the guide plate to interfere with the push protrusion. Further if applicant does not agree with this interpretation, analogous molding art, Zhou, discloses molded gate section 310 acts as an interference member between the presser and the guide plate in order to ensure separation of the molded product from the molding shells. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the upper mold further includes an interference member between the presser and the guide plate to interfere with the push protrusion as taught by Zhou for the benefit of separating the mold from the guide plate.
Regarding claim 4, ‘465 discloses wherein the upper mold further includes a coupling member (58), coupleable to the guide plate. As for the configured to move the guide plate via the interference member, and the interference member is configured to rotate around the coupling member, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 5, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou depicts wherein the presser further includes a recessed portion (220) adjacent to the push protrusion and in which the interference member (310) is insertable.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the push protrusion includes a first inclined surface protruding from the side surface to be inclined toward the guide plate, a connecting surface extending from one end thereof connected to the first inclined surface, and a second inclined surface extending from an other end of the connecting surface and inclined toward the side surface (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the annotated figure above depicts wherein the recessed portion includes a bottom surface (see connecting surface above) including one end connected to the first inclined surface, and a guide surface extending parallel to the second inclined surface from an other end of the bottom surface (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou depicts wherein the interference member includes a first slide surface inclined parallel with the first inclined surface to be slidable relative to the first inclined surface, and a second slide surface inclined parallel with the second inclined surface to be slidable relative to the second inclined surface (310 in figure 4).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20150125465A, herein referred to as ‘465 in view of Wang (US 2016/0075099 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Zhou (US 2017/0232650 A1), as applied to claim 4, and further in view of KR2006/0105068A, herein ‘068.
Regarding claim 14, ‘465 does not explicitly disclose wherein the interference member includes a hinge coupling portion into which a hinge shaft configured to rotate the interference member is insertable, the hinge coupling portion being coupled to the coupling member, and the coupling member includes a hinge fixing portion into which the hinge shaft is inserted. However, analogous art, ‘068, discloses incorporated hinges in order to allow rotation and to reduce costs (abstract). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a hinge shift since it allows rotation and is affordable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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 current prior arts ‘465 does not explicitly disclose wherein the side surface of the presser is a first side surface facing a first direction along a horizontal direction and the presser includes a second side surface facing a second direction along a horizontal direction different from the first direction, and the push protrusion is a first push protrusion formed on the first side surface and the presser includes a second push protrusion on the second side surface at a height different from a height of the first push protrusion. Analogous art, ‘375, depicts wherein the side surface of the presser is a first side surface facing a first direction along a horizontal direction and the presser includes a second side surface facing a second direction along a horizontal direction different from the first direction (44) and the push protrusion is a first push protrusion (22) formed on the first side surface and the presser includes a second push protrusion(24) on the second side surface at a height different from a height of the first push protrusion (see figures 4a and 4b). However, ‘465, ‘375, Zhou, and ‘068 fails to disclose or suggest wherein the side surface of the presser is a first side surface facing a first direction along a horizontal direction, and the presser includes a second side surface facing a second direction that is opposite to the first direction along the horizontal direction, the push protrusion is a first push protrusion formed on the first side surface, and the presser includes a second push protrusion formed on the second side surface and positioned upward of the first push protrusion, and the upper mold includes a first interference member between the presser and the guide plate to interfere with the first push protrusion, and a second interference member provided between the presser and the guide plate to interfere with the second push protrusion. It is the claim as a whole (including all the limitations of claim 1, 2, and 10 that makes the claim allowable). It is the Examiner’s opinion that without the use of inappropriate hindsight or destroying the references for their intended purpose, it would not have been obvious to combine the prior art references in the manner required by the instant claims.
Claims 11-12 are objected for depending on claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights