DETAILED ACTION
In Application filed on 06/02/2025, claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1-7 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner wishes to point out the application claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2112.01 and 2114-2115 for further details).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high temperature” and “high pressure” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, it is unclear as to how high the temperature and/or pressure has to be to be considered as high.
The term “slightly larger” and “slightly smaller” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, it is unclear as to how small and/or large is considered as slightly smaller and/or slightly larger.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the singular terms “the downward convex annular protrusion,” “the downward concave annular frame portion,” “the upward concave arc-shaped annular groove,” and “the upward convex annular frame portion,” as well as singular versions of their associated diameters. The claims previously introduced that there was a plurality of each of these protrusions/portions/grooves, so the reference to a singular one of each is unclear as to whether it is intended to refer to all of them or a single one.
Claims 2-7 are rejected by virtue of depended upon a rejected claim 1.
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) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109435134 (“Cheng et al” hereinafter Cheng), CN118003544 (“Bin et al” hereinafter Bin), CN112622146 (“Li et al” hereinafter Li), and CN101524880 (“Chen et al” hereinafter Chen), machine translation provided for all of above foreign patent publication.
Regarding Claim 1, Cheng teaches a mold device (Figure 1) with a high-temperature, high-pressure, airtight cavity structure (abstract), comprising:
a lower mold (Figure 1, lower mold 2), including a lower mold body (Figure 1, lower mold body 21), the lower mold body having a main cavity (Figure 1, notch 23) for forming a workpiece (page 2, lines 44-52), a lower parting surface being defined from the main cavity to a periphery of the lower mold body (See annotated Figure 1), the lower parting surface including an inner support surface segment (see annotated Figure 1) surrounding the main cavity, an outer support surface segment (see annotated Figure 1), and an airtight support surface segment (Figure 1, sealing groove 24) between the inner support surface segment and the outer support surface segment (see annotated Figure 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
623
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an airtight gasket (Figure 1, gasket 3), including a thin gasket body (Figure 5 and page 2, lines 59-60, gasket 3 includes a gasket body 35), the thin gasket body surrounding the main cavity of the lower mold and being attached to the lower parting surface (Figure 1 and page 1, lines 37-40, a sealing gasket is disposed in the sealing groove), the thin gasket body having an inner gasket lip and an outer gasket lip (see annotated Figure 5) corresponding to the inner support surface segment and the outer support surface segment (page 1, lines 37-40), and an airtight gasket frame connected between the inner gasket lip and the outer gasket lip (see annotated Figure 5), the airtight gasket frame having a plurality of downward concave annular frame portions and a plurality of upward convex annular frame portions each connected between every adjacent two of the plurality of downward concave annular frame portions
PNG
media_image2.png
402
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Fiigure 5);
an upper mold (Figure 1, upper mold 1), including an upper mold body (Figure 1, upper mold body 11).
Cheng fails to teach the lower mold body made of steel, the upper mold body made of steel and having an upper cavity, the upper cavity and the main cavity of the lower mold constituting a workpiece forming cavity, an upper parting surface being defined from the upper cavity to a periphery of the upper mold body.
However, Bin teaches the lower mold body made of steel (Figure 3 and page 5, lines 12-18, the core plate 123 which is structurally equivalent to the lower mold body is made of stainless steel), the upper mold body (Figure 4, mold cavity half 11 with mold body comprises cavity plate 113) made of steel (Figure 3 and page 5, lines 12-18, the cavity plate 113 is made of stainless steel) and having an upper cavity (Figure 1, mold cavity plate 113), the upper cavity (Figure 1, mold cavity plate 113) and the main cavity of the lower mold (Figures 1 and 3, mold core plate 123 of the mold core half 12) constituting a workpiece forming cavity (Figure 1, mold cavity 102), an upper parting surface (see annotated Figure 4) being defined from the upper cavity to a periphery of the upper mold body (see annotated Figure 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
556
790
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Cheng and Bin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of molding apparatus for foaming with a sealing gasket. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Cheng such that it includes all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Bin to fit the shape of the sealing rings in order to prevent leakage (page 2, lines 35-40). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known mold design. See MPEP 2143.
The modified Cheng fails to teach the upper parting surface including an inner pressing surface segment surrounding the upper cavity, an outer pressing surface segment, and an airtight pressing surface segment between the inner pressing surface segment and the outer pressing surface segment, the inner pressing surface segment and the outer pressing surface segment being configured for pressing the inner gasket lip and the outer gasket lip of the airtight gasket.
However, Cheng teaches the lower mold comprises the lower parting surface including an inner support surface segment (see annotated Figure 1) surrounding the main cavity, an outer support surface segment (see annotated Figure 1), and an airtight support surface segment (Figure 1, sealing groove 24) between the inner support surface segment and the outer support surface segment (see annotated Figure 1), the inner pressing surface segment and the outer pressing surface segment being configured for pressing the inner gasket lip and the outer gasket lip of the airtight gasket (see Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the lower parting surface of the lower mold such that the upper parting surface of the upper mold also exhibits above mentioned structures, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the lower parting surface for the purpose of forming a completely airtight seal around the gasket. Furthermore the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
The modified Cheng fails to teach the lower mold comprises the airtight support surface segment having a plurality of downward concave arc-shaped annular grooves and a plurality of upward convex annular protrusions each connected between every adjacent two of the plurality of downward concave arc-shaped annular grooves; the upper mold comprises the airtight pressing surface segment having a plurality of downward convex annular protrusions configured for pressing the respective downward concave annular frame portions and a plurality of upward concave arc-shaped annular grooves each connected between every adjacent two of the plurality of downward convex annular protrusions and configured for clamping the respective upward convex annular frame portions.
However, Li teaches the lower mold (Figure 3, bottom injection mold 22) comprises the airtight support surface segment having a plurality of downward concave arc-shaped annular grooves (Figure 3, cylindrical mold cavity 24) and a plurality of upward convex annular protrusions (Figure 3, the protrusion located in between each cylindrical mold cavity) each connected between every adjacent two of the plurality of downward concave arc-shaped annular grooves (Figure 3); the upper mold (Figure 3, upper injection mold 23) comprises the airtight pressing surface segment (Figure 3, the surface that holds the sealing plate 28) having a plurality of downward convex annular protrusions (Figure 3, the protrusion located in between each cylindrical mold cavity)configured for pressing the respective downward concave annular frame portions (Figure 3 and page 2, lines 32-35) and a plurality of upward concave arc-shaped annular grooves (Figure 3, the surface has a plurality of upward concave portion for the cylindrical sealing plate 28 to be inserted into) each connected between every adjacent two of the plurality of downward convex annular protrusions and configured for clamping the respective upward convex annular frame portions (Figure 3 and page 2, lines 32-35).
Cheng and Li are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of molding apparatus with a sealing gasket. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by the modified Cheng such that it includes all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Li to seal both ends of the mold cavity and facilitate the separation go the molded product from the injection bottom mold(page 5, lines 6-7).
The modified Cheng fails to teach the airtight gasket is made of flexible metal material.
However, Chen teaches it is known in the art that the airtight gasket is made of flexible metal material (page 1, soft metal gasket such as aluminum gasket or copper gasket).
Cheng and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of molding apparatus with a sealing gasket. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by the modified Cheng such that it includes all of the above mentioned limitations as Chen disclosed it is known to use a soft metal gasket because utilizing one known gasket material in place of another soft metal gasket material also suitability in the field of molding is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Cheng teaches the mold device as claimed in claim 1. Bin teaches wherein the lower mold body (Figure 3 and page 5, lines 12-18, the core plate 123 which is structurally equivalent to the lower mold body is made of stainless steel such as AISI 718) and the upper mold body of the lower mold and the upper mold are made of steel or stainless steel (Figure 3 and page 5, lines 12-18, the cavity plate 113 is made of stainless steel such as AISI 718) with a Rockwell hardness of HRC20 or above (AISI 718 has a Rockwell hardness of 36-42 HRC). Cheng fails to teach the thin gasket body of the airtight gasket is made of copper or aluminum with a Rockwell hardness of HRC20 or below.
However, Chen teaches it is known in the art that the thin gasket body of the airtight gasket is made of copper or aluminum (page 1, soft metal gasket such as aluminum gasket or copper gasket) with a Rockwell hardness of HRC20 or below (aluminum has a Rockwell hardness of 0-20 HRC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by the modified Cheng such that it includes all of the above mentioned limitations as Chen disclosed it is known to use a soft metal gasket because utilizing one known gasket material in place of another soft metal gasket material also suitability in the field of molding is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Cheng teaches the mold device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the thin gasket body of the airtight gasket has a thickness of 0.5 to 2 mm (Chen, page 2, lines 4-5, the height, which is also the thickness, of the gas is 1.8±0.3mm).
Since the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP 2144.05(I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109435134 (“Cheng et al” hereinafter Cheng), CN118003544 (“Bin et al” hereinafter Bin), CN112622146 (“Li et al” hereinafter Li), and CN101524880 (“Chen et al” hereinafter Chen), machine translation provided for all of above foreign patent publication as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2009/0214948 (“Cheon et al” hereinafter Cheon).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Cheng teaches the mold device as claimed in claim 1, Cheng teaches wherein in a cross-sectional shape of the airtight gasket, upper surfaces of the inner gasket lip and the outer gasket lip are flush with each other (Figure 1, Figure 5, and page 1, lines 37-40), in a cross-sectional shape of the lower parting surface of the lower mold (see annotated Figure 1), the inner support surface segment and the outer support surface segment are flush with each other (see annotated Figure 1), thereby defining a support reference line according to the thickness of the thin gasket body of the airtight gasket (see annotated Figure 1), in a cross-sectional shape of the upper parting surface of the upper mold (see annotated Figure 1), the inner pressing surface segment and the outer pressing surface segment are flush with each other, thereby defining a pressing reference line (Figure 1).
Cheng fails to teach each of the downward concave arc-shaped annular grooves of the airtight support surface segment is a downward concave semicircular annular groove for receiving a corresponding one of the downward concave annular frame portions, having a center point on the support reference line and a downward concave circular diameter corresponding to the downward concave outer diameter of the corresponding downward concave annular frame portion, each of the upward convex annular protrusions of the airtight support surface segment is an upward convex semicircular annular protrusion that can be received by a corresponding one of the upward convex annular frame portions , having a center point on the support reference line and an upward convex circular diameter corresponding to the upward convex inner diameter of the corresponding upward convex annular frame portion; each of the downward convex annular protrusions of the airtight pressing surface segment is a downward convex semicircular annular protrusion that can be received by a corresponding one of the downward concave annular frame portions, having a center point on the pressing reference line and a downward convex circular diameter corresponding to the downward concave inner diameter of the corresponding downward concave annular frame portion, each of the upward concave arc-shaped annular grooves of the airtight pressing surface segment is an upward concave semicircular annular groove for receiving a corresponding one of the upward convex annular frame portions, having a center point on the pressing reference line and an upward concave circular diameter corresponding to the upward convex outer diameter of the corresponding upward convex annular frame portion.
However, Li teaches each of the downward concave arc-shaped annular grooves of the airtight support surface segment (Figure 3, cylindrical mold cavity 24) is a downward concave semicircular annular groove for receiving a corresponding one of the downward concave annular frame portions (Figure 3), having a center point on the support reference line and a downward concave circular diameter corresponding to the downward concave outer diameter of the corresponding downward concave annular frame portion (Figure 3 and page 2, lines 32-35), each of the upward convex annular protrusions of the airtight support surface segment is an upward convex semicircular annular protrusion (Figure 3, the protrusion located in between each cylindrical mold cavity) that can be received by a corresponding one of the upward convex annular frame portions (Figure 3), having a center point on the support reference line and an upward convex circular diameter corresponding to the upward convex inner diameter of the corresponding upward convex annular frame portion (Figure 3 and page 2, lines 32-35); each of the downward convex annular protrusions of the airtight pressing surface segment (Figure 3, the surface that holds the sealing plate 28) is a downward convex semicircular annular protrusion that can be received by a corresponding one of the downward concave annular frame portions (Figure 3, the surface that holds the sealing plate 28), having a center point on the pressing reference line and a downward convex circular diameter corresponding to the downward concave inner diameter of the corresponding downward concave annular frame portion (Figure 3 and page 2, lines 32-35), each of the upward concave arc-shaped annular grooves of the airtight pressing surface segment is an upward concave semicircular annular groove (Figure 3, the protrusion located in between each cylindrical mold cavity) for receiving a corresponding one of the upward convex annular frame portions (Figure 3, the surface has a plurality of upward concave portion for the cylindrical sealing plate 28 to be inserted into), having a center point on the pressing reference line and an upward concave circular diameter corresponding to the upward convex outer diameter of the corresponding upward convex annular frame portion (Figure 3 and page 2, lines 32-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by the modified Cheng such that it includes all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Li to seal both ends of the mold cavity and facilitate the separation go the molded product from the injection bottom mold(page 5, lines 6-7).
The modified Cheng fails to teach the cross-sectional shape of the airtight gasket thereby defining a reference line, each of the downward concave annular frame portions of the airtight gasket frame is a downward concave semicircular frame portion having a downward concave inner diameter and a downward concave outer diameter both established on the reference line according to a thickness of the thin gasket body , each of the upward convex annular frame portions of the airtight gasket frame is an upward convex semicircular frame portion having an upward convex inner diameter and an upward convex outer diameter both established on the reference line according to the thickness of the thin gasket body, the upward convex outer diameter of the upward convex annular frame portion corresponds to the downward concave inner diameter of the downward concave annular frame portion;
PNG
media_image4.png
653
735
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Cheon teaches the cross-sectional shape of the airtight gasket thereby defining a reference line (see annotated Figure 4), each of the downward concave annular frame portions of the airtight gasket frame is a downward concave semicircular frame portion having a downward concave inner diameter (see annotated Figure 4) and a downward concave outer diameter both established on the reference line according to a thickness of the thin gasket body (See annotated Figure 4), each of the upward convex annular frame portions of the airtight gasket frame is an upward convex semicircular frame portion having an upward convex inner diameter (see annotated Figure 4) and an upward convex outer diameter (see annotated Figure 4) both established on the reference line according to the thickness of the thin gasket body (see annotated Figure 4), the upward convex outer diameter of the upward convex annular frame portion corresponds to the downward concave inner diameter of the downward concave annular frame portion (Figure 4).
Cheng and Cheon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using sealing gasket to form an airtight space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by the modified Cheng such that it includes all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Cheon the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known sealing gasket design. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Cheng teaches the mold device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the downward convex circular diameter of the downward convex annular protrusion of the airtight pressing surface segment is slightly larger than the downward concave inner diameter of the downward concave annular frame portion (Cheon, [0053] and annotated Figure 4), and the upward concave circular diameter of the upward concave arc-shaped annular groove is slightly smaller than the upward convex outer diameter of the upward convex annular frame portion (Cheon, [0053] and annotated Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Cheng teaches the mold device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the airtight gasket is disposed reversely between the lower parting surface and the upper parting surface (Cheon, Figure 4), and the cross-sectional shape of the airtight support surface segment of the lower parting surface and the cross-sectional shape of the airtight pressing surface segment of the upper parting surface are matched with the reversed airtight gasket in a manner where their original cross-sectional shapes are exchanged according to the reversed the airtight gasket (Figure 4).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109435134 (“Cheng et al” hereinafter Cheng), CN118003544 (“Bin et al” hereinafter Bin), CN112622146 (“Li et al” hereinafter Li), CN101524880 (“Chen et al” hereinafter Chen), machine translation provided for all of above foreign patent publication, and US2009/0214948 (“Cheon et al” hereinafter Cheon) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of NPL, How Thick Does Your Gasket Need to Be? Here Are 4 Ways to Know for Sure (mti).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Cheng teaches the mold device as claimed in claim 5. The modified Cheng fails to explicitly teach wherein the downward convex circular diameter of the downward convex annular protrusion is larger than the downward concave inner diameter of the downward concave annular frame portion by 0.01-0.03 mm; the upward concave circular diameter of the upward concave arc-shaped annular groove is smaller than the upward convex outer diameter of the upward convex annular frame portion by 0.01-0.03 mm.
While the modified Cheng does not explicitly disclose changing the thickness of the sealing gasket, the change in the thickness of the sealing gasket is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Mti teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that compressibility and load retentions are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said thickness of the sealing gasket (Gorilla, page 2, para. 3), with said compressibility decreasing and material hardness increasing as the thickness of the sealing gasket increased, the precise coating thickness would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the sealing gasket in the apparatus of the modified Cheng to obtain the desired balance between the compressibility and load retentions (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights