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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gergov does not teach a method of determining a characterization profile of melt within a mold and argues this is not analogous art. Examiner disagrees. Gergov is analogous because it teaches data collection and monitoring of injection molding processes. Examiner also notes that Gergov is not cited as teaching the characterization profile. Gergov is cited with respect to injection molding at various temperatures and calculating the change is temperature based on the pressure. As per claim 14, these steps are seemingly unrelated to the characterization profile which is created later in the claims. The characterization profile is created based on the predicted temperature rise or fall which does not refer back to any of the previously recited method steps either. Additionally, elements recited in the preamble of the claim that are not positively recited in the body of the claim are not necessarily patently distinct from the prior art.
With respect to Huang, Applicant argues that Huang does not use software that takes into account the measurement of the temperature of the melt in the injection molding system. Examiner notes the claim does not specify this limitation. Again, it is noted that characterization profile is created using the predicted temperature rise or fall but it is not specified that the predicted temperature rise or fall of the mold is based on any of the previously recited data or temperatures changes in the claim. Beaumont is cited as predicting the temperature rise or fall and creating a profile and mold filling simulation based on that temperature. While Beaumont is silent about specifically using that profile and simulation to design a mold, Huang discloses using a flow simulation model to design a mold based on the simulation. Huang does not need to specifically teach the specific parameters in the flow simulation because they are already taught by Beaumont. Huang merely teaches the use of a flow simulation in designing a mold. Applicant also notes that the instant specification that existing simulation programs rely on mathematical models without understanding of the performance of the plastic melt and argues this is what Huang is doing. Examiner again notes that the claim does not actually require the characterization profile to be based off of the previously claims injecting steps or data.
Applicant argues that claim 14 is amended to overcome a rejection under 35 USC 101 however the previous rejections under 101 were previously withdrawn and there is no outstanding rejections under 101.
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.
Claims 14-19, 21-22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaumont (US 2013/0255371) modified by Gergov (US 2019/0105826) and Huang (CN103699718A, see English translation provided.)
Regarding claim 14, Beaumont meets the claimed, A method for predicting temperatures in an injection molding system for the design of injection molded plastic parts, injection molds, and the molding process in injection molds for molding plastic parts (Beaumont [0076] describes predicting temperature rise or drop in molding channels 30) comprising: providing a mold that has at least one channel with each channel having a constant cross- sectional shape along its length (Beaumont [0036]-[0037] and Figures 3A and 3B describe a molding tool half with channels 30 which have constant cross-sectional shapes but varying diameters) providing a first sensor configured to collect pressure data from each channel; (Beaumont [0062] describes a pressure sensor 24 in the channel 30) providing a second sensor for at least detecting the presence of plastic, the second sensor located at a known distance downstream of the first sensor; (Beaumont [0062] describes an additional pressure sensor 26 that is located downstream of pressure sensor 24) calculating a change in pressure between each progressive first and second sensor; (Beaumont [0057] describes calculating the pressure development through the sensors in the channels 30) deriving a temperature change in each progressive first and second sensor section; (Beaumont [0074] and [0076] describes predicting temperatures variations throughout flow channels based on measured data) and predicting temperature rise or fall in a mold for a given melt material, (Beaumont [0070] describes determining moldability characteristics based on a given polymer) melt temperature, channel thickness, and melt flow rate (Beaumont [0074]-[0076] describes temperature variations, pressure, melt flow velocity, are predicted given a characterization channel) using the predicted temperature rise or fall in a mold for a given melt material, melt temperature, channel thickness, and melt flow rate to create a characterization profile of the injected molten plastic (Beaumont [0074] describes a material characterization profile, [0076] describes temperature variations within the characterization system, see also [0063])
Beaumont does not explicitly describe providing at least one duplicate arrangement of the first sensor and the second sensor at or beyond the second sensor, however, Beaumont [0042] describes that the number and location of these sensors can be varied within the system.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor arrangement of Beaumont to include more sensors in order to determine if the flow properties are linear or non-linear properties, see Beaumont [0048].
Beaumont describes characterization tests in multiple channels for multiple flow rates and calculating a pressure change, see [0058] and [0074], but does not explicitly describe varying the temperatures and does not meet the claimed, injecting molten plastic at various temperatures in each of the channels and collecting sensor data for the molten plastic flowing through each channel or calculating a change in temperature based on the calculated pressure change due to a known temperature change derived from the step of injecting molten plastic at various temperatures.
Analogous in the field of injection molding, Gergov meets the claimed, injecting molten plastic at various temperatures in each of the channels and collecting sensor data for the molten plastic flowing through each channel (Gergov [0031] describes performing injections at various injection temperatures and obtaining measurements in the mold) calculating a change in temperature based on the calculated pressure change due to a known temperature change derived from the step of injecting molten plastic at various temperatures (Gergov [0034] describes the temperature change throughout the mold and [0037] describes calculating the temperature at a variety of locations based off of the parameters changed in [0031].)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Beaumont with injecting the plastic at various temperatures, recording data, and calculating temperatures as described in Gergov in order to determine how other properties, such as flow rate, are affected by changing the temperature, and make subsequent adjustments to the molding process, see Gergov [0032] and [0040], which allows for real time calculation and adjustment of the injection molding during a molding cycle in a molding run, see Gergov [0065].
Beaumont does not meet the claimed, and using the characterization profile to design an injection mold for the manufacture of plastic parts.
Analogous in the field of injection molding simulations, Huang also describes a method of simulating a mold flow and meets the claimed, and using the characterization profile to design an injection mold for the manufacture of plastic parts (Huang [0011]-[0017] describe using flow simulation models to obtain information about the molds and designing and manufacturing molds based on the simulations.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of obtaining the flow characteristics and described in Beaumont with the step of using the flow characteristics to design a mold as described in Huang in order to reduce deformation and simplify the design trial process, see Huang [0005] and [0021].
Regarding claim 15, Beaumont meets the claimed, The method of claim 14 wherein the plastic is a thermoset or a thermoplastic (Beaumont [0058] describes a thermoplastic material.)
Regarding claim 16, Beaumont does not explicitly meet the claimed, The method of claim 14 wherein the duplicate arrangement uses the second sensor of the previous section as its first sensor, however, Beaumont [0042] describes that the number and location of these sensors can be varied within the system and that both the first and second sensors 24 and 26 can be pressure sensors.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor arrangement of Beaumont to include more pressure sensors in order to determine if the flow properties are linear or non-linear properties, see Beaumont [0048].
Regarding claim 17, Beaumont meets the claimed, The method of claim 14 wherein the first and second sensor both collect pressure data (Beaumont [0062] describe the pressure sensor 24 and additional sensor 26 are both pressure sensors.)
Regarding claim 18, Beaumont meets the claimed, The method of claim 14 further comprising creating a mathematical model based on the predicted temperature rise or fall in a mold for a given melt material, melt temperature, channel thickness, and melt flow rate (Beaumont [0066] and [0076] describes creating mathematical models and simulation programs based on the characterization profiles.)
Regarding claim 19, Beaumont [0067] describes a mold filling simulation program but does not specify that it a finite element mesh and does not meet the claimed, The method of claim 14 further comprising creating a mathematical model based on the predicted temperature rise or fall in a mold for a given melt material, melt temperature, channel thickness, and melt flow rate and applying the mathematical model to a finite element mesh to predict temperature change during mold filling of three-dimensional geometries.
Analogous in the field of injection molding, Gergov meets the claimed, The method of claim 14 further comprising creating a mathematical model based on the predicted temperature rise or fall in a mold for a given melt material, melt temperature, channel thickness, and melt flow rate and applying the mathematical model to a finite element mesh to predict temperature change during mold filling of three-dimensional geometries (Gergov [0035]-[0037] describe an FEA (finite element analysis) that uses parameters including the temperature change mentioned in [0034] to calculate additional parameters including temperature curves and predicted temperatures at the virtual sensors. A “mesh” is a fundamental component of the FEA. See also [0041]-[0043].)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Beaumont with the finite element analysis of Gergov in order to approximate and adjust parameters in real-time and create a self-controlling system, see Gergov [0040]-[0041].
Regarding claim 21, Beaumont meets the claimed, The method of claim 14 wherein at least one first sensor is located upstream of each channel (Beaumont [0062] describes a sensor can be placed in the injection unit 12.)
Regarding claim 22, Beaumont meets the claimed, The method of claim 14 wherein at least one first sensor is located in each channel (Beaumont [0042] and Figure 1B show sensor 24 in the channel 30.)
Regarding claim 24, Beaumont does not meet the claimed, The method of claim 14 wherein the injecting molten plastic is provided at various mold temperatures.
Analogous in the field of injection molding, Gergov meets the claimed, The method of claim 14 wherein the injecting molten plastic is provided at various mold temperatures (Gergov [0030] describes mold temperature may be a variable parameter.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Beaumont with injecting the plastic at various mold temperatures as described in Gergov in order to determine how other properties, such as flow rate, are affected by changing the temperature, and make subsequent adjustments to the molding process, see Gergov [0030] and [0040].
Regarding claim 25, Beaumont meets the claimed, The method of claim 14 wherein the injecting molten plastic is provided at various melt injection flow rates (Beaumont [0015] describes injecting at different flow rates.)
Regarding claim 26, Beaumont meets the claimed, The method of claim 14, wherein the mold has multiple channels and each channel has a different thicknesses with a constant cross-sectional shape along its length (Beaumont Figure 3A shows the channels 30 with several different thicknesses but a constant cross sectional shape.)
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaumont as modified by Gergov as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kim (KR100798373B1, see English translation provided.)
Regarding claim 23, Beaumont [0037] describes other geometries of the channel 30 may be used but does not explicitly describe a varying cross-sectional shape and does not meet the claimed, The method of claim 14 wherein at least one channel has a varying cross- sectional shape along its length.
Analogous in the field of injection molding, Kim meets the claimed, The method of claim 14 wherein at least one channel has a varying cross- sectional shape along its length (Kim page 4 lines 29-34 describes a runner 22a with a varying cross sectional shape along the length of the runner.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the channels of modified Beaumont with an additional channel of varying cross-sectional shape as described in Kim in order to produce a temperature gradient and correct for temperature differences of the material in different branches of the runner, see page 5 lines 11-21 and page 2 lines 61-64.
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 VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights