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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (6 – 16 – 2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.Applicant argues…
Polk et al. (US 20080057286 A1, hereinafter Polk) does not teach the newly amended feature(s) of the first mold portion including at least one of a tongue or a groove extending parallel to the longitudinal axis
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Polk / Polk as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
PNG
media_image1.png
540
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As detailed previously, in the action of (15 – 18 – 2024) Polk discloses
PNG
media_image2.png
498
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
on ([0097]) that the raised feature may be dimensioned to fit partially into upper portion 32 of recess 23, such that when interior mold portion surfaces 21 and 20 are brought into abutment, the first plastic material previously introduced into recess 23 is compressed. As such, portion 32 of recess 23 is understood to act as a tongue or a groove within the cavity. Highlighting, that the lateral / sidewalls of the portion 32 of recess 23 is found to provide and acts as applicants tongue or a groove extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the first mold portion 11.Additionally, the (Abstract) notes that the recess (23) is defined by the upper surface (44) of a part ejector (14). Highlighting, as provided the part ejector 14 is also found to provide for a tongue or a groove extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the first mold portion 11.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Polk / Polk as modified.
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 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.
A.) Claim(s) 7 – 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polk et al. (US-2008/0,057,286, hereinafter Polk), in view of Michael Cude (US- 2008/0,292,738 hereinafter Cude)Regarding claim 7,
A system for molding an object, comprising:
an articulated mold having a longitudinal axis and including a first mold portion and
a second mold portion,
a first actuator and
a second actuator, and
a controller, and
a molding cavity the first mold portion including at least one of a tongue or a groove extending parallel to the longitudinal axis;
the first actuator operatively coupled to the first mold portion and
configured to move the first mold portion along the longitudinal axis in a first direction from a first molding position toward a first ejecting position;
the second actuator operatively coupled to the second mold portion and configured to move the second mold portion along the longitudinal axis as the first mold portion and in the same first direction as the first mold portion from a second molding position toward a second ejecting position; and
wherein the controller is in communication with the first and second actuators and is configured to independently activate the first and second actuators.
Polk teaches the following:
([0057]) teaches that first mold portion 11 and second mold portion 17 are reversibly positionable relative to each other. Where either the first mold part 11 or second mold part 17 may act as applicant’s first mold portion being moved.Noting, that the directional movement for both mold parts is vertical, i.e. up and/or down and axis is vertical. As detailed each mold portion has a longitudinal axis that runs through the vertical axis of the mold.
& i.) ([0056]) teaches that the part ejector 14 may be moved manually or mechanically between first- and second-part ejector positions A and B (and vice versa). Typically, part ejector 14 is moved mechanically, for example hydraulically by means of a drive-arm (not shown). Noting, that the drive-arm system (not shown) acts as applicants second actuator. Highlighting, that the directional movement for part ejector is vertical, i.e., up and/or down along the same axis. As such, hydraulically drive-arm is understood to be coupled to the part ejector 14 .
, g.) & h.) ([0057]) teaches that the first 11 and second 17 mold portions may be reversibly positioned by known methods, for example, manually or mechanically. Typically, the mold portions are reversibly positioned by mechanical means, for example, by hydraulically driven drive-arms (not shown) along rails or tubular guides (not shown), in accordance with art-recognized methods. Noting, that the drive-arm system (not shown) acts as applicants first actuator coupled to a mold portion. As such, the hydraulically driven drive-arms are understood to be coupled to the first 11 and second 17 mold portions.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
498
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0097]) teaches that the raised feature may be dimensioned to fit partially into upper portion 32 of recess 23, such that when interior mold portion surfaces 21 and 20 are brought into abutment, the first plastic material previously introduced into recess 23 is compressed. As such, portion 32 of recess 23 is understood to act as a tongue or a groove within the cavity. Highlighting, that the lateral / sidewalls of the portion 32 of recess 23 are found to provide and acts as applicants tongue or a groove extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the first mold portion 11.Additionally, the (Abstract) notes that the recess (23) is defined by the upper surface (44) of a part ejector (14). Highlighting, as provided the part ejector 14 is also found to provide for a tongue or a groove extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the first mold portion 11.
Regarding Claim 7, Polk is silent regarding a controller. In analogous art for the production of injection molded parts, that implements a series independent actuators and means for controlling the actuators, Cude teaches a central means for controlling the actuators, and in this regard Cude teaches the following:
& j.) ([0029]) teaches that with reference to (Fig. 3) through (Fig. 6), each core 90, 90 a, and corresponding core shaft 109 or pin 102, included within the mold 80 may respectively be connected to individual core actuators 93, which may be servomotors 122 as previously mentioned. Any type of rotary actuator 120 may be chosen with sound judgment. A controller 131 may be connected to manage operation, i.e. activation and deactivation, of the rotary actuators 120. ([0029]) further stating that in utilizing a plurality of rotary actuators 120, the controller 131 may include a plurality of motor controllers 138, and more specifically a plurality of variable frequency drive units, in a one to one corresponding relationship with the rotary actuators 120. This effectively allows each rotary actuator 120 to be driven independently from the others. Noting, ([0026]) states that the core 90 may be inserted into the mold 80 in a linear motion by a core actuator 93. It follows that linear actuators 104 may be incorporated into the mold 80 to set and pull the core 90. Highlighting, ([0028]) states that the cores 90 a may be directly coupled to the output of the core actuator 93 or servomotor 122 whereby the molded article is thereby ejected by unscrewing from the plastic part. Additionally, ([0029]) states the controller maybe a logic processor which is also programmable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method for injection molding a plastic article, wherein the method implements two molding portions that each have a respective actuator that drives the molding portions in the same direction along the same axis, of Polk, by utilizing a programmable control for a plurality of actuators, as taught by Cude. Highlighting, implementation of a programmable control for a plurality of actuators allows for each of the rotary actuator 120 to be driven independently from the others, ([0026]).
Regarding claim(s) 8 – 9 as applied to claim 7,
Wherein the controller is configured to activate the first and second actuators sequentially to move the respective mold portions in the first direction.
Wherein the controller is configured to activate the first actuator prior to activating the second actuator.
Polk teaches the following:
([0076]) teaches that after formation of molded body 59, molded article 2 is removed from the mold. For example, first mold portion 11 and second mold portion 17 are typically separated from each other, and molded article 2 is removed from first mold portion 11. The molded article 2 may be removed from first mold portion 11 by part ejector 14 being moved further into recess 23 (e.g., into a molded article ejection position—not shown). Wherein it is understood that the molded article can’t be ejected or removed prior to the second (upper) mold portion is open first. Similarly, moving part ejector 14 before second mold portion 17 won’t result in ejection of the molded part, the molded part would compress into the cavity of the mold.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 7,
Wherein at least one of the first actuator or the second actuator is a hydraulic actuator.
Polk teaches the following:
([0056]) teaches that the part ejector 14 may be moved manually or mechanically between first- and second-part ejector positions A and B (and vice versa). Typically, part ejector 14 is moved mechanically, for example hydraulically by means of a drive-arm (not shown). ([0057]) teaches that Typically, the mold portions are reversibly positioned by mechanical means, for example, by hydraulically driven drive-arms (not shown) along rails or tubular guides (not shown), in accordance with art-recognized methods.
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 7,
Wherein the first actuator and the second actuator are configured to move the first mold portion and the second mold portion, respectively, in a second direction opposite the first direction from the respective first and second ejecting positions toward the respective first and second molding positions.
Polk teaches
([0057]) teaching that the first mold portion 11 and second mold portion 17 are reversibly positionable relative to each other, with both the first mold portion 11 and second mold portion 17 being moveable. As such, it is understood that after removing of the part via ejection pin takes place, this would result in the molding components being in a similar position as illustrated in (Fig. 8). However, the ejection pin would be slightly higher, and the component would not be within the cavity. At this point, both actuators must retreat, such that the mold portion and ejector pin are back into their respective injection positions as depicted in (Fig. 9), for the next injection cycle to take place.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 11,
Wherein the controller is configured to activate the first and second actuators simultaneously to move the respective mold portions in the second direction.
Polk teaches the following:
It should be noted that for this series of movements, the result is back into the original molding position. As detailed in Polk, the actuators have three options, the first option is the actuator for second (upper) mold portion maybe activated first, followed by the actuator for the ejection pin. The second option is having the ejection pin actuator active first, followed by the actuator for the second (upper) mold portion. Finally, the last option would be to activate the actuators for both the second (upper) mold portion and the ejection pin. Consequently, given a limited number of known options to implement, one could cite the case law for KSR. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Highlighting, that the first two options require two separate step and would require more time. Whereas activating simultaneously would allow for a single step and shorten the molding cycle time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dale Polk (US 20110045241 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) a method of forming a molded plastic article with a second surface with molded extensions, and a first surface that is substantially free of sink mark defects. The method involves forming, from a first plastic material, a first molded section with at least one molded extension extending from the second surface. The molded extension is formed in a mold recess with a reversibly positionable slide. After formation of the first molded section, the slide is retracted to a second slide position thus forming within the molded extension a retainer cavity that is in fluid communication with an aperture in the first surface of the first molded section.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)-272-1000.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743