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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that the sprockets are not coaxially fixed to the tie bar nut but instead are integrally fixed to the tie bar nut, but this is along a common axis ie the axis which would be the center of (2) [Fig 2] in Hasegawa. Additionally, the drive chain (14) is separate from the transmission member (17). Applicant has not addressed the 112(d) issue in claim 23.
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 23 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 13 requires “a drive chain wound around the motor side sprocket and the drive sprocket” while claim 23 recites “the drive chain is wound around only the drive sprocket” which eliminates a limitation of claim 13 of the drive chains relation to the motor side sprocket. 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.
For purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted this limitation as requiring that the drive chain not be connected to the rotation members/tie bar nut side sprocket.
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) 13, 14, 16-18, 20, 22, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasegawa (JP S60-019416 U).
As to claim 13, Hasegawa teaches the mold thickness adjusting device according to: a plurality of tie bar nuts (3b) with rotation members respectively fixed to the tie bar nuts (5), one endless string shaped forced transmission member (17) around the rotation members [Fig 2, 3], the mold thickness adjusting device according to wherein the rotation driver includes: a motor (11) provided on the side of the housing [Fig 2, 3]; a motor side sprocket provided on the motor (13); a drive sprocket (6) integrally provided and coaxially fixed with the drive target tie bar nut and fixed to each other by bolt (9) together with the tie bar nut side sprocket (5); and a drive chain (14 separate from transmission member 17) 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 both sprockets are one the same side of the mold clamping housing, 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 2, 3]. 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 2, 3]. 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 and rotation member be coaxially on tie bar nut with both sprockets on same side of housing, 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 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 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.
As to claim 14, Hasegawa teaches the force transmission member is a chain (17) [Page 3, Fig 2, 3].
As to claim 16, Hasegawa teaches the plurality of tie bars include four tie bars, and wherein the plurality of tie bar nuts include four tie bar nuts [Fig 2, 3].
As to claim 17, Hasegawa 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 [Page 3, Fig 2, 3].
The placement being upper or lower would depend on the arrangement of the machine and perspective of the user.
As to claim 18, 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]. 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.
The placement being upper or lower would depend on the arrangement of the machine and perspective of the user.
As to claim 20, Hasegawa teaches a motor provided on the side of the mold clamp as explained above.
As to claim 22, 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.
As to claim 24, Hasegawa teaches the transmission member (17) is not wound around the motor side sprocket or the drive sprocket [Fig 2].
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (JP S60-019416 U).
As to claim 23, Hasegawa teaches that the tie bar nut side sprocket and the drive sprocket are separated by a space along the same axis. However, eliminating an element (a spacer) and its function (the space between the 2 sprockets) is obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 II A. Furthermore, merely changing the axial distance between the 2 already nearby elements would just be a rearrangement of part, see MPEP 2144.04 VI C. Hasegawa teaches the drive chain is wound only around the drive sprocket without contacting the tie bar nut side sprocket [Fig 2, 3].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (JP S60-019416 U) 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.
Furthermore, Altering Hasegawa such that eliminating an element (roll 18) and its function is obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 II A.
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
Prosecution Insights