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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 9/1/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/1/2026.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2020/0391465).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a variable pressure controlled injection method comprising:
(a) providing an injection molding system comprising a first variable pressure mold and a second variable pressure mold (par. 0021-0022; Fig. 2; variable pressure injection molds 200; only labeled on one side of the drawing) are disposed to one another corresponding to a foaming molding space (210), and the variable pressure injection molds both comprise:
(i) a mold body (par. 0022 – explains that the reference number is omitted); and (ii) a variable pressure porous layer (“variable pressure air discharge layer” 220 having “variable pressure pores” 221; par. 0022-0023);
(b) injecting a first foaming material (400) into the foam molding space (210) (par. 0026); and
(c) performing a foaming step, wherein the first variable pressure mold applies a first pressure, and the second variable pressure mold applies a second pressure to the foaming material (from opposite sides of the system as shown in Fig. 2), and then the material is heated (par. 0028) to form the product.
Wang does not disclose that the first and second pressures (as applied from each of the sides) are different from each other as is required in the claim.
However, Wang does teach (par. 0027) that as the foaming material expands, the air that is originally in the foaming material space is pressed into the variable pressure pores above, as to balance and regulate the internal pressure of the mold (par. 0027, 0030). Thus, it appears from these teachings, that the applied pressure(s) from each side would be dependent upon the amount of air originally in the space as well as the foaming material within the space, and would be performed as to balance the conditions present. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have specified that the first/second pressures are applied as to have compensated for the expansion of the foaming material, as is required in the claims.
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the variable pressure injection molds have a porous surface with a diameter of the variable pressure pores is 100-300 microns (par. 0022), overlapping with the clamed range of 200-700 microns.
It has been held that where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps or lies inside of the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have specified that the diameter of the pores is as required in the claim.
Regarding claims 3-5, Wang discloses the subject matter of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not appear to explicitly describe a duration of the pressure being applied.
However, as is explained above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have specified the pressure(s) as an optimization of the internal pressure of the mold as is also outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the foaming material is a plastic foaming material (par. 0021).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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 at (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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights