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 .
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.
Status of the Claims
Amendments were filed 9/08/23. Claims 1, 6-9, and 11-19 are pending, wherein claims 12-19 were newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 19 is dependent from claim 9, but repeats the same limitation, thus failing to further limit the claim from which it depends from.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bazzo (US 2019/0016031, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Bazzo teaches an insert (figs 7-13, assembly of inserts 14 and 15) adapted to be placed at a gate of an injection molding machine around a tip of a molten material injector (figs 7-13, shown around a tip of an injection molding machine), the molten material injector having an injector body (injector 7), the insert comprising:
a one-piece cup-shaped first element (figs 7-13, die insert 14 is cup shaped) comprising
lateral walls (fig 7, see walls of die insert 14) that delimit a first opening for housing the injector body (fig 7, see opening of die insert 14 where nozzle 7 is inserted),
a bottom (fig 7-8, note that the portion of die insert 14 shown in figure 8 is construed as the bottom) centrally provided with a second opening (fig 8 shows recess 25, as well as seat 16), the first and second openings being passable and having a center (fig 8, openings have a center, being passable is a functional limitation, does not require what is passed, an opening is passable), and
an axis of substantial symmetry that is orthogonal to the bottom and passing through the center of the first and second opening (figs 7-13, note the axis of symmetry and the orthogonal bottom);
a second element (figs 7-13, gate insert 15) provided with a third central opening (figs 7-13, see fig 12 showing gate insert 15 having an opening within cylindrical portion 28) having a major dimension that is smaller than that of the second opening (figs 7-13, see fig 8 showing the opening of the gate insert 15 is smaller than the recess 25 as well as the seat 16 of the die insert 14),
the second element being connectable to said bottom so that the second opening and third opening are aligned (figs 7-13, the gate insert 15 is threadably coupled to the die insert 14 at the second opening (construed as the bottom, fig 7-8)), wherein the second opening has edges and the second element is connectable to the edges of the second opening (figs 7-13, see figure 8 showing gate insert 15 is connected to the edges of the recess 25 by threads 19,24); and
wherein the first and second element
are structured so that the second element is snugly insertable into, and can pass through, the second opening (figs 7-13, gate insert 15 is inserted into the recess 25 (passes through 25) of die insert 15 and can be fully screwed to provide contact between the outer surface 22 of the gate insert and conical seat 16 of the die insert, thus being snugly inserted), and
comprise respective threads through which they can be coupled together by screwing one with the other (figs 7-13, paragraph [0044], see fig 8 showing threads 19 of gate insert 15 and threads 24 of die insert 14),
thereby the second element is movably connected to the first element so that it can move along said axis and thereby adjust its relative position with respect to the first element (Bazzo teaches the gate insert 15 is screwed and arranged in the die insert 14, where the fully screwed position (paragraph [0044]) is where the conical surface 22 rests on conical seat 16 in fig 8, thus Bazzo suggests the gate insert is movably connected to thereby adjust its relative position (via the screws, e.g., in a not fully screwed condition, the gate insert will be moved along the axis in a position relative to the die insert), note that this is the same as taught in applicant’s specification, p.2 lines 25-29, where the mutual screwing adjusts the relative position of the second element with respect to the first).
Regarding claim 6, Bazzo teaches wherein the second opening has margins, and the thread of the first element is placed on the margins of the second opening (figs 7-13, paragraph [0044], see fig 8, showing inner threading 24 formed in the wall of the recess 25 of die insert 14).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Bazzo teaches the second element (gate insert 15) comprises a circular bushing-shaped portion (figs 7-13, axial wall 18 of gate insert 15) comprising a lateral surface on which a thread is provided (figs 7-13, note threading 19 on the axial wall surface 18), the circular bushing-shaped portion extending with a tapered portion (figs 7-13, central appendage 20 extends from the axial wall 18 and is tapered).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Bazzo teaches wherein the tapered portion has a conical shape (figs 7-13, fig 8, note the outer conical surface 22 of the central appendage 20).
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.
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, 6-9, and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puri (US 5,879,727) in view of Bazzo.
Regarding claim 1, Puri teaches an insert (abstract, gate insert, fig 9) adapted to be placed at a gate of an injection molding machine around a tip of a molten material injector, the molten material injector having an injector body, the insert comprising:
a one-piece cup-shaped first element (fig 9, mold plate 28) comprising
lateral walls that delimit a first opening (fig 9, see walls defining bore 24) for housing the injector body,
a bottom (fig 9, see bottom) centrally provided with a second opening (fig 9, gate bore 108””), the first and second openings being passable and having a center (fig 9, has a center, an opening is passable (functional limitation)), and
an axis of substantial symmetry that is orthogonal to the bottom and passing through the center of the first and second opening (fig 9, note a central axis passes through the first and second openings);
a second element (fig 9, gate insert 88””) provided with a third central opening (fig 9, note mold gate corresponding to ref 92 in other figures) having a major dimension that is smaller than that of the second opening (fig 9, smaller than gate bore 108””),
the second element being connectable to said bottom so that the second opening and third opening are aligned (fig 9, threadably connected, openings are coaxial, thus, aligned), wherein the second opening has edges (fig 9, note internal surface of gate bore 108””) and the second element is connectable to the edges of the second opening (fig 9, gate insert 88”” threaded to internal surface of gate bore 108””); and
wherein the first and second element are structured so that the second element is snugly insertable into (fig 9, threadably connected), and can pass through the second opening (fig 9, gate insert 88”” passes through 108””), and comprise respective threads through which they can be coupled together by screwing one with the other (fig 9, threads 180, 184), thereby the second element is movably connected to the first element so that it can move along said axis and thereby adjust its relative position with respect to the first element (functional limitation, note that Puri’s gate insert is removable, abstract).
Puri is quiet to the first element being an insert, as the first element is the mold plate.
However, Bazzo teaches that a gate insert can be threaded to the mold plate (4) or to a die insert (14) installed in the mold plate (paragraph [0023], fig 7). Bazzo teaches that the die insert can use less expensive materials than the gate insert (paragraph [0047]), and that should wear problems arise, it would be sufficient to replace the gate insert without replacing the entire die insert (paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Puri such that the gate insert is threaded to a die insert instead of the mold plate, as Bazzo suggests that a gate insert can be threaded to either a die insert in the mold plate or the plate itself, and that if wear arises, the additional part can be replaced without replacing the entire assembly.
Regarding claim 6, Puri teaches wherein the second opening has margins, and the thread of the first element is placed on the margins of the second opening (fig 9, threads 184 are on the gate bore 108””).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Puri teaches the second element comprises a circular bushing-shaped portion comprising a lateral surface on which a thread is provided (fig 9, threads 180 are on a circular bushing portion of gate insert), the circular bushing-shaped portion extending with a tapered portion (fig 9, the interior of the gate insert is tapered towards the mold gate 92).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Puri teaches wherein the tapered portion has a conical shape (fig 9, see interior portion of gate insert 88””).
Regarding claims 9 and 14-19, Puri teaches wherein the first and second elements comprise two respective circular areas for reciprocal abutting, said bottom comprising an external surface, the circular abutting area of the first element being placed on the external surface of the bottom (fig 9, note the shoulder at the bottom where the gate insert 88”” abuts with the mold plate).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puri as modified by Bazzo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kmoch et al (US 2008/0268089).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches wherein the lateral walls of the first element comprise an outer surface (Bazzo, see die insert 14), but is quiet to the outer surface of the lateral walls of the first element comprising at least one groove for cooling fluid.
Kmoch et al teaches an injection molding machine, including a cavity insert removably mounted within a cavity plate, and a gate insert defining a receptacle for the nozzle assembly and further defining a second portion of the gate (abstract). In figure 9, Kmoch et al teaches a cooling channel 190 defined within the gate insert 188 to reduce heat transference from the nozzle assembly to a cavity (paragraph [0043]), and is shown on the outer surface of the lateral walls (fig 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination to include cooling channels on the outer surface of the lateral walls of the first element, so as to reduce heat transference from the nozzle assembly to the cavity, as taught in Kmoch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/08/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the term “opening” is a hole or equivalent thereof to pass something there-through, and that the claim has been amended to require “openings being passable and having a center.” Applicant argues that recess 25, as well as seat 16 in Fig. 8 of Bazzo fail to anticipate “a bottom centrally provided with a second opening, the first and second openings being passable and having a center.” Applicant argues that the second element 15 in Bazzo is received within the bottom only from above and cannot pass through the second opening since the second element 15 is overall larger than the width of the tapered seat portion 16.
The examiner disagrees. Note the language of the claims. The limitation of “openings being passable and having a center” only describes the function of openings, not describing passing any particular element through the opening. The limitation of “are structured so that the second element is snugly insertable into, and can pass through the, second opening” is met as the second element (15) passes through recess 25 (inserted from above) as the central appendage (20) extends into the conical seat (16) (fig 8).
Applicant’s arguments directed to Gellert are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735