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 Amendment
No further amendment to the claims have been filed since applicant amendment filed 09/15/2025. Claims 1-3 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellert (US 5118280 of record) in view of Altonen et al. (US2014/0141117 of record) hereinafter Altonen and Baensch (DE4125975 of record).
Regarding claim 1, Gellert teaches:
A method for producing an injection-molded part with an injection mold (abstract),
wherein a melt is injected through a nozzle opening (col 3, ln 52-54) located in a mold surface of the injection mold (Fig 1: nozzle 18, forward end 24) into a cooled cavity of the injection mold (Fig 1: cavity 30, cooling conduit 62; col 2, ln 56-58, col 3, ln 35-37) before the injection-molded part is demolded once the melt has solidified (col 3, ln 35-37),
wherein the sprue is torn off during demolding of the injection-molded part along the nozzle opening in the region of the sprue (col 3, ln 35-37; the gate material stays in the gate when the solidified injection molded part is ejected).
Gellert does not teach producing an injection-molded part from plastic, wherein the plastic melt is exposed to heat in a region of a sprue during solidifying in the cooled cavity.
However, Gellert teaches that the operating cycle can vary by controlling heating and/or cooling to the nozzles at different times (col 4, ln 39-41).
In the same field of endeavor regarding injection molding, Altonen teaches producing an injection-molded part from plastic ([0036-0037]), wherein the plastic melt is exposed to heat in a region of a sprue during solidifying in the cooled cavity for the motivation of preventing freeze-off ([0002-0005, 0036-0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation as taught by Gellert so that the plastic between the nozzle and mold cavity remains molten as taught by Altonen in order to prevent freeze-off.
Gellert in view of Altonen does not explicitly recite wherein the sprue is torn off during demolding of the injection-molded part along the nozzle opening in the region of the sprue as a result of a temperature gradient set during demolding between the injection-molded part cooled and solidified in the cooled cavity and the heated plastic melt. However, Altonen teaches a temperature gradient set during demolding between the cooled solidified injection-molded part and the heated plastic melt ([0002-0005, 0036-0037]; the runners between the nozzle and mold cavity are heated so that the plastic contained within remains molten while the material in the mold solidifies). Gellert further teaches tearing of the sprue above. Such a temperature gradient would necessarily contribute to the tearing of the sprue.
Gellert in view of Altonen does not teach melt in the form of at least one ribbon-like strand of melt is injected through a nozzle slit.
In the same field of endeavor regarding injection molding, Baensch teaches plastic melt in the form of at least one ribbon-like strand of melt is injected through a nozzle slit for the motivation of allowing easier demolding (Fig 1-4: gate opening 9; p 1, last paragraph-p 2, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nozzle as taught by Gellert in view of Altonen with the nozzle slit as taught by Baensch in order to allow easier demolding.
Regarding claim 2, Gellert in view of Altonen and Baensch teaches the method of claim 1.
Baensch further teaches wherein the nozzle slit is formed by a housing (Fig 1-2: nozzle head 2).
Gellert further teaches wherein the nozzle opening is formed by a housing (Fig 1: nozzle 18), and wherein the housing is cooled in the region of the nozzle opening and cooling of the mold cavity (col 2, ln 56-58, col 3, ln 56-57).
Altonen further teaches the temperature gradient between the solidified injection-molded part and the molten sprue including cooling of the material in the mold cavity (see art rejection of claim 1 above).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches wherein the housing is cooled in the region of the nozzle slit in order to adjust the temperature gradient between the solidified injection-molded part and the molten sprue.
Regarding claim 3, Gellert teaches:
A method for producing an injection-molded part with an injection mold (abstract), the method comprising:
providing an injection-molding nozzle (Fig 1: nozzle 18), a housing (Fig 1: nozzle 18), a nozzle opening located in a mold surface of the injection mold (Fig 1: gate 28 forward end 24);
inserting the injection-molding nozzle into the injection mold so that the nozzle opening lies in an outer mold surface of the injection mold (Fig 1);
injecting melt through the nozzle opening into a cooled cavity of the injection mold (Fig 1: cavity 30, cooling conduit 62; col 2, ln 56-58, col 3, ln 35-37, col 3, ln 52-54) before the injection-molded part is demolded once the plastic melt has solidified (col 3, ln 35-37);
exposing the plastic melt to heat in the region of a sprue over an entire longitudinal extension of the nozzle (Fig 1: forward portion 38 of heating element 32; col 2, ln 36-41); and
tearing off the sprue during demolding of the injection-molded part along the nozzle opening in the region of the sprue (col 3, ln 35-37; the gate material stays in the gate when the solidified injection molded part is ejected).
Gellert does not teach producing an injection-molded part from plastic, exposing the plastic melt to heat in the region of a sprue during solidifying in the cooled cavity to set a temperature gradient during demolding, including when the injection-molded part is removed from the injection mold, between the plastic melt solidified in the cavity and the sprue.
However, Gellert teaches that the operating cycle can vary by controlling heating and/or cooling to the nozzles at different times (col 4, ln 39-41).
In the same field of endeavor regarding injection molding, Altonen teaches producing an injection-molded part from plastic ([0036-0037]), exposing the plastic melt to heat in the region of a sprue during solidifying in the cavity to set a temperature gradient during demolding, including when the injection-molded part is removed from the injection mold, between the plastic melt solidified in the cavity and the sprue for the motivation of preventing freeze-off ([0002-0005, 0036-0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation as taught by Gellert so that the plastic between the nozzle and mold cavity remains molten as taught by Altonen in order to prevent freeze-off.
Gellert in view of Altonen does not explicitly recite tearing off the sprue during demolding of the injection-molded part as a result of the mechanical strength of the plastic melt produced in a transitional region from the sprue to the injection-molded part caused by the temperature gradient between the injection-molded part cooled and solidified in the cooled cavity and the heated liquid plastic melt.
However, Altonen teaches a temperature gradient set during demolding between the cooled solidified injection-molded part and the heated plastic melt ([0002-0005, 0036-0037]; the runners between the nozzle and mold cavity are heated so that the plastic contained within remains molten while the material in the mold solidifies). Gellert further teaches tearing of the sprue. Such a temperature gradient would inherently produce a difference in mechanical strength in the area where the sprue is torn off and would necessarily contribute to the tearing of the sprue. Furthermore, since the prior art process teaches the same steps as the claimed process, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to assume the prior art process functions in the same manner as the claimed process.
Gellert in view of Altonen does not teach an injection-molding nozzle comprising a heatable nozzle core, a housing which accommodates the nozzle core, a nozzle opening forming a nozzle slit, a nozzle channel between the housing and the nozzle core which tapers in a flow direction and opens into the nozzle opening, a feed channel for a plastic melt, a distributor channel between the feed channel and the nozzle channel, and a throttle zone flow-connecting the distributor channel to the nozzle channel, wherein the nozzle core is heatable in relation to the housing, and wherein the throttle zone is configured to rheologically distribute over a length of the nozzle slit a melt stream and a ribbon-like strand of melt.
In the same field of endeavor regarding injection molding, Baensch teaches an injection-molding nozzle comprising a heatable nozzle core (Fig 1-4: torpedo 6), a housing which accommodates the nozzle core (Fig 1-4: nozzle body 1), a nozzle opening forming a nozzle slit for melt in the form of at least one ribbon-like strand of melt (Fig 1-4: gate opening 9), a nozzle channel between the housing and the nozzle core which tapers in a flow direction and opens into the nozzle opening (Annotated Baensch Fig 1), a feed channel for a plastic melt (Annotated Baensch Fig 1), a distributor channel between the feed channel and the nozzle channel (Annotated Baensch Fig 1), and a throttle zone flow-connecting the distributor channel to the nozzle channel (Annotated Baensch Fig 1), wherein the nozzle core is heatable in relation to the housing (p 2, second full paragraph), and wherein the throttle zone is configured to rheologically distribute over a length of the nozzle slit a melt stream (p 1, last paragraph - p 2, second full paragraph) for the motivation of allowing easier demolding (p 2, first paragraph).
PNG
media_image1.png
418
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nozzle as taught by Gellert in view of Altonen with the nozzle as taught by Baensch in order to allow easier demolding.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gellert teaches a cold runner injection molding system while the claimed invention is a hot runner injection system.
There is no requirement in Gellert that the method is limited to only cold runner operation. Col 4, ln 30-45 recites “While the description of the apparatus which provides integral cooling in the forward portion of a nozzle, it is not to be construed in a limiting sense. Variations and modifications will readily occur to those skilled in the art… The operating cycle can vary by controlling heating and/or cooling to the nozzles at different times.” Altonen further teaches cold runner systems, hot runner systems, and hybrid hot-to-cold runner systems ([0004]) and is open to changes and modifications ([0090]). Therefore the prior art method is wholly compatible with a hot runner system if needs be. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues against the feasibility of combining specific preferred embodiments offered by the prior art, including allegations that Gellert excludes a hot runner system. However, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. Furthermore, as shown above, the prior art references are open to modifications. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Broadly speaking, Gellert is relied upon for a teaching that the sprue is torn off during demolding of the injection-molded part along the nozzle opening in the region of the sprue. Altonen is relied upon for a teaching that the plastic melt is exposed to heat in a region of a sprue during solidifying in the cooled cavity.
Applicant argues that Altonen teaches heating of feeder channels not the sprue. However, Altonen describes such feeder channels as distributing molten plastic from the machine nozzle to each individual mold cavity ([0004]). The area of the sprue of Gellert clearly falls under this scope as the material travels from the nozzle 10, through gate 28 in the area of the sprue, into the mold cavity 30.
Applicant concedes that Altonen teaches a temperature gradient, but that the temperature gradient of Altonen does not contribute to the separation of the sprue because of its location between nozzle opening 30 and inlet area of nozzle 26. However, the examiner notes that Fig 1 of Gellert teaches the nozzle opening, gate 28, can be part of the mold cavity 30 itself. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, combining the teachings of the temperature gradient of Altonen with the design of Gellert makes obvious the location of the temperature gradient.
Applicant argues that the nozzle slit of Baensch is incompatible with Altonen because Altonen advocates for a reduction of the hydraulic diameter. However, the examiner notes that the hydraulic diameter referenced by Altonen is always in the context of the hydraulic diameter of runners, not nozzles. Furthermore, even if the teachings of Altonen’s hydraulic diameter could be applied to the nozzle slit of Baensch, applicant has provided no evidence that the hydraulic diameter of Baensch is incompatible with any critical threshold offered by Altonen that would prevent compatibility of the teachings. Applicant has also provided no citations or evidence that Altonen desires a reduction of hydraulic diameter in all cases. The most the examiner can find regarding hydraulic diameter in Altonen are preferred ranges for the relative hydraulic diameter under certain conditions, none of which exclude the nozzle slit of Baensch. Applicant appears to be arguing that a the shape alone of a cross section is enough to determine the compatibility of Altonen’s hydraulic diameter with the nozzle slit of Baensch and appears to completely disregard other critical factors such as size, dimensions, etc.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 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, 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 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741