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 1.114
A 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/5/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues the 2 drive approach of Inoue, but this merely demonstrates how one of ordinary skill in the art would be further motivated to alter the device Inoue in light of Hasegawa and/or Brown as they simplified the design to only a single motor and both noted the advantage of even traversal along the tie bars. In response to applicant's argument that Brown is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Brown was directly pertinent to applicant problem of evenly traversing a driven object via a tie bar toggle mechanism. In response to the remaining arguments, the examiner reiterates that the applicants argues that Inoue does not teach the drive transmits exclusively to a single drive sprocket, but this feature is taught by Hasegawa or Brown respectively. Applicant argues that Brown’s belt and wheel configuration does not teach chains and sprockets, but chains and sprockets are taught by Inoue and Hasegawa (Hasegawa notes the transmission member is a chain which would mean the rotational members are sprockets). Applicant argues against the examiner’s reasoning concerning rearrangement of part, but applicant has eliminated the feature the necessitated the rearrangement of part argument: the order of elements from outermost to innermost of the instant invention is drive sprocket, rotation member, tie bar nut. Hence, no rearrangement of part is required. Applicant argues that Inoue and Hasegawa do not teach the elimination of tensioner rollers, but this feature is unclaimed. In fact, claim 18 requires the use of tensioners. Furthermore, Brown does not utilize tensioners, so the feature would still be rendered obvious.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the tie bar nut side sprocket and drive sprocket both directly mounted on and coaxially fixed to the tie bar nut must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 13, it is recited “at least one rotation drive configures to exclusively transmit a driving force to a corresponding one of the plurality of tie bar nuts as a drive target tie bar nut” and in claim 22 recites “the motor and the drive chain are configured to directly rotate only the drive target tie bar nut without directly driving the endless string shaped force transmission member.” The examiner has interpreted these limitations of “only” and “exclusively” to apply to amongst the plurality of the tie bar nuts. In other words, the drive chain wraps around only a single tie bar nut and not others, however, intermediary idler rolls would be permissible. Indeed, idler rolls on the drive chain must be permitted by the claim else claim 21 would fail to further limit claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 states that the tie bar nut side sprocket and the drive sprocket are “both directly mounted on… the drive target bar nut.” However, the drive sprocket (33) at least is not directly mounted on the tie bar nut (27a) as the other sprocket (29) is disposed in between [Fig 3].
For purposes of examination this claim was interpreted as simply requiring that the drive sprocket and tie bar nut side sprocket be on the drive target tie bar nut.
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.
Claims 13, 14, 16-18, 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (JP 2008-284788) in view of Hasegawa (JP S60-019416 U).
As to claim 13, Inoue teaches a mold thickness adjusting device, the mold thickness adjusting device comprising: a plurality of tie bar nuts (11) respectively provided on the plurality of tie bars (2) [0014, Fig 1], and configured to adjust a distance between the fixed platen and the mold clamping housing [Fig 1, 0014]; a plurality of rotation members respectively provided integrally with the plurality of tie bar nuts (12) [0009, 0015, Fig 1]; one endless string-shaped force transmission member (13) wound around the plurality of rotation members [0015]; and Inoue teaches the plurality of rotation members are tie bar nut side sprockets (12, 115), and a rotation driver (14 15) configured to directly transmit a driving force to at least one of the plurality of tie bar nuts as a drive target tie bar nut [0008, 0015, Fig 1, 2].
As the claims are directed to the mold thickness adjusting device and not the mold clamping device it is provided and the preamble does not limit the claims, see MPEP 2111.02 the recitations of the device being “provided in a mold clamping device including: a fixed platen; a movable platen; a mold clamping housing; a plurality of tie bars connecting the fixed platen and the mold clamping housing; and a toggle mechanism provided between the mold clamping housing and the movable platen” is not interpreted as limiting the claim.
Inoue teaches the rotation driver includes: a motor (14) [0013, 0015]; a motor side sprocket (15) provided on the motor; a drive sprocket integrally provided with the drive target tie bar nut (12, 115); and a drive chain (13) wound around the motor side sprocket and the drive sprocket, but does not teach that this chain is individual and separate from the transmission chain and that the tie bar contains a separate drive sprocket from the rotation members and the motor provided on a side of the mold clamp housing.
Hasegawa teaches the mold thickness adjusting device according to: The mold thickness adjusting device according to wherein the rotation driver includes: a motor (11); a motor side sprocket provided on the motor (13); a drive sprocket (6) integrally provided with the drive target tie bar nut and fixed to each other by bolt (9); and a drive chain (14) wound around the motor side sprocket and the drive sprocket additional to the transmission member (17), wherein each of the plurality of rotation members tie bar nut side sprockets (5) is fixed in contact with a corresponding one of the plurality of tie bar nuts (3b), wherein the drive sprocket (6) is fixed in contact with the rotation member (5) both provided on/coaxially fixed to the drive target tie bar nut among the plurality of rotation members, and wherein the motor (11) is provided on a side of the mold clamping housing [Page 3, Fig 2 and 3]. As the drive chain is only wound round the drive sprocket and not the other rotation member, the rotation driver is configured to exclusively transmit a driving force to only 1 of a corresponding plurality of tie bar nuts [Fig 3, 4]. This provides even movement across the tie bars via the motor, in other words rotation of the drive sprocket by the drive chain causes simultaneous rotation of both the drive target tie bar nut and the tie bar nut side sprocket thereby driving the endless string shaped force transmission member to synchronously rotate all other tie bar nuts [Fig 3, 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Inoue and had the drive sprocket distance on tie bar away from the rotation member, a motor provided on a side of the mold clamp housing, and the chain be direct and separate from the transmission chain, the motor exclusively providing transmission force to the drive sprocket on only 1 on the tie bar nuts, as suggested by Hasegawa, as this had proven successful at even movement along the tie bars.
As to claim 14, Inoue teaches the plurality of rotation members are tie bar nut side sprockets (12, 115), and wherein the force transmission member is a chain (13) [Fig 1. 0015].
As to claim 16, Inoue teaches the plurality of tie bars include four tie bars, and wherein the plurality of tie bar nuts include four tie bar nuts [0009, 0014, 0015, Fig 1].
As to claim 17, Inoue teaches all 4 of the tie nut/sprockets are a drive target tie bar nuts so either of the upper nut/sprockets could be considered disposed at a position of an upper portion of the mold clamping housing among the plurality of tie bar nuts [0009, 0014, 0015, Fig 1].
As to claim 18, Inoue does not explicitly state a tension adjusting member configured to adjust a tension of the force transmission member, wherein the tension adjusting member is disposed between two rotation members disposed at positions of a lower portion of the mold clamping housing among the plurality of rotation members.
Hasegawa teaches the mold thickness adjusting device according to wherein a tensioner (19) is provided between the 2 lower rotation members [Page 3, Fig 2 and 3]. This provides even movement across the tie bars via the motor [Fig 3, 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Inoue and had a tensioner between the lower rotation member, as suggested by Hasegawa, as this had proven successful at even movement along the tie bars.
The position of the tension adjusting member would be between the lower rotation members depending on the perspective of the user or how the machine was positioned. Furthermore, this is a mere rearrangement of part generally considered to be obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
As to claim 20, the combination of Inoue and Hasegawa teaches a motor provided on the side of the mold clamp as explained above.
As to claim 22, Inoue does not explicitly state the mold thickness adjusting device according to wherein the motor and the drive chain are configured to directly rotate only the drive target tie bar nut without driving the endless string-shaped force transmission member, wherein the endless string-shaped force transmission member is rotated solely by rotation of the drive target tie bar nut, and wherein each of the plurality of rotation members is coupled for synchronous rotation via the endless string-shaped force transmission separate from the drive chain.
Hasegawa teaches the mold thickness adjusting device according to: The mold thickness adjusting device according to wherein the rotation driver includes: a motor (11); a motor side sprocket provided on the motor (13); a drive sprocket (6) integrally provided with the drive target tie bar nut and fixed to each other by bolt (9); and a drive chain (14) wound around the motor side sprocket and the drive sprocket additional to the transmission member (17), wherein each of the plurality of rotation members (5) is fixed in contact with a corresponding one of the plurality of tie bar nuts, wherein the drive sprocket (6) is fixed in contact with the rotation member (5) on a side distanced from the drive target tie bar nut among the plurality of rotation members, and wherein the motor (11) is provided on a side of the mold clamping housing [Page 3, Fig 2 and 3]. This provides even movement across the tie bars via the motor [Fig 4]. This configuration would the mold thickness adjusting device according to wherein the motor and the drive chain are configured to directly rotate only the drive target tie bar nut without driving the endless string-shaped force transmission member, wherein the endless string-shaped force transmission member is rotated solely by rotation of the drive target tie bar nut, and wherein each of the plurality of rotation members is coupled for synchronous rotation via the endless string-shaped force transmission separate from the drive chain [Fig 2-4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Inoue and had the mold thickness adjusting device according to wherein the motor and the drive chain are configured to directly rotate only the drive target tie bar nut without driving the endless string-shaped force transmission member, wherein the endless string-shaped force transmission member is rotated solely by rotation of the drive target tie bar nut, and wherein each of the plurality of rotation members is coupled for synchronous rotation via the endless string-shaped force transmission separate from the drive chain, as suggested by Hasegawa, as this had proven successful at even movement along the tie bars.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (JP 2008-284788) in view of Hasegawa (JP S60-019416 U) and, as applied to claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, and in further view of Kadoriku (JP H01133708). Note this is an alternative rejection of claim 18
As to claim 18, Inoue does not explicitly state a tension adjusting member configured to adjust a tension of the force transmission member, wherein the tension adjusting member is disposed between two rotation members disposed at positions of a lower portion of the mold clamping housing among the plurality of rotation members.
Kadoriku teaches a mold thickness regulator tension adjusting member (27, 30) for the transmission chain (13) in order to ensure each of the tie bars synchronize [0001, 0002, Fig 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Inoue and included a tension adjusting member configured to adjust a tension of the force transmission member, as suggested by Kadoriku, as this ensured each of the tie bars synchronize.
The position of the tension adjusting member would be between the lower rotation members depending on the perspective of the user or how the machine was positioned. Furthermore, this is a mere rearrangement of part generally considered to be obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (JP 2008-284788) in view of Hasegawa (JP S60-019416 U), as applied to claims 13, 14, 16-18, 20, 22, and Brown (US 5572431).
As to claim 21, The combination of Inoue and Brown teach that the drive chain connects the motor side sprocket to the drive sprocket w/o intermediate sprockets [Fig 2-4 Brown]
Brown teaches a stage driven by a tie bar (60) system [col 8 line 12-19, Fig 2, 4] wherein the motor (61) exclusively transmits a driving force to the rotation member/ drive sprocket (the circular sprocket surrounding 60 in bottom left hand corner of Fig 4) which is coaxial with and rotates in fixed relation to a drive target side sprocket (the driven sprockets surrounded by 66) as this had proven successful at even movement of the stage along the tie bars [col 8 line 12-19, Fig 2-4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Inoue and had the motor exclusively transmit driving force to the drive sprocket ie without a tensioner, as suggested by Brown, in order to evenly rotate an item along the tie bars.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759