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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the page 6-8 arguments that the prior art combination of Glaesener, in view of PRW, does not teach the amended elements of claim 1.
Glaesener teaches an apparatus capable of performing the amended elements of “the ejector relative to the moveable mold half, the controlling including matching velocity, in opposing directions, of the moveable mold half with the ejector”; and an obvious rationale exists to modify in view of PRW, which teaches the control method for this amended element.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the page 7 argument that the ejector actuator (Fig 2A, item 922) of Glaesener is not the functional equivalent of the ejector of instant claim 1. Glaesener teaches “the clamping assembly 996 may also include an ejector actuator 922 (such as, for example, a hydraulic actuator, a pneumatic actuator, an electro-mechanical actuator, or the like) that is associated with the moving platen 912. The ejector actuator 922 is connectable to a structure that is associated with the first mold half 96. The structure of the first mold half 96 is driven, in use, with actuation of the ejector actuator 922, whereby an operation is performed, such as, for example, ejecting the first molded article 102A (FIG. 4) from the first mold half 96” [0027].
This teaches the Glaesener ejector assembly is associated with the moving platen, connected to a first mold (moving platen mold half), and responsible for ejecting the molded article.
As shown in Glaesener Figs 2A & 2B, the ejector independently drives an ejector in the opposite direction of the movable mold platen during mold opening.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the page 7-8 argument that the stripper actuator can performing the action of the ejector actuator connected to the second core retainer to eject the molded part(s).
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to the amended elements of claim 1, and will be discussed further in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections section.
The cancellation of claims 2, 16-20 & 22-29, and the amendments to claims 1, 5 & 7-9 are acknowledged.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaesener (US20110305786A1; of record), in view of PRW (Curtain Falls on All-Electric Cascade Challenge; of record). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer executable instructions, which computer executable instructions when executed can cause a controller apparatus of a molding machine to execute a method of ejecting a molded article from an injection mold, the injection mold including a stationary mold half and a moveable mold half, the moveable mold half further including a molding component for defining, in use, at least a portion of the molded article, the molding component including a core insert and a stripper sleeve positionable around the core insert, the injection mold configured to be used in a molding machine, the method comprising: during a first portion of a mold opening cycle of the injection mold: initiating opening the injection mold with movement of the moveable mold half through a mold stroke away from the stationary mold half from a mold closed position towards a mold open position; initiating movement of an ejector of the moveable mold half through an ejector stroke from a molding position towards an ejection position relative to the moveable mold half; the opening the injection mold and moving the ejector being done along a first axis of operation of the injection mold in relatively opposite directions of movement; during a second portion of the mold opening cycle of the injection mold, the second portion occurring later in time relative to the first portion of the mold opening cycle of the injection mold: controlling velocity of: (i) the moveable mold half relative to the stationary mold half, and (ii) the ejector relative to the moveable mold half, the controlling including matching velocity, in opposing directions, of the moveable mold half with the ejector; such that the molded article is ejected from the molding component with a substantially zero departure-velocity along the first axis of operation the second portion being initiated at a predetermined portion of the mold opening cycle, the predetermined portion being when the molded article is at a final contact point with the molding component, wherein during (i) the initiating movement of the moveable mold half and (ii) initiating movement of an ejector, velocities of the moveable mold half and the ejector are controlled independently from each other.
such that the molded article is ejected from the molding component with a substantially zero departure-velocity along the first axis of operation the second portion being initiated at a predetermined portion of the mold opening cycle, the predetermined portion being when the molded article is at a final contact point with the molding component, wherein during (i) the initiating movement of the moveable mold half and (ii) initiating movement of an ejector, velocities of the moveable mold half and the ejector are controlled independently from each other.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Glaesener teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer executable instructions [0011], which computer executable instructions when executed can cause a controller apparatus of a molding machine to execute a method of ejecting a molded article from an injection mold [0011], the injection mold including a stationary mold half (Fig. 2B, item 914) and a moveable mold half (Fig. 2B, item 912), the moveable mold half further including a molding component for defining, in use, at least a portion of the molded article (Fig. 2B, item 102A), the molding component including a core insert and a stripper sleeve (Fig. 2B, item 116) positionable around the inner and outer core inserts (Fig. 2B, items 112, 114; [0056]), the injection mold configured to be used in a molding machine (Fig. 1), the method comprising: during a first portion of a mold opening cycle of the mold: initiating opening the injection mold with movement of the moveable mold half through a mold stroke away from the stationary mold half from a mold closed position towards a mold open position [0033-0035]. This first portion of the molding cycle taught by Glaesener would remove the article from the cavity while the cores inserts are within the article (See Fig. 2B article positioned outside the mold cavity (Fig. 2A, item 101), which is prima facie obviously about half the stroke distance of the movable mold half, with full movement of movable mold half shown from Figures 2A to 2B. Nearing the final mold opening position (see Fig. 2B), the stripper sleeve and ejectors have been actuated, and the core inserts are no longer within the article.
Glaesener teaches initiating movement of the stripper actuator and ejector actuator of the moveable mold half through an ejector stroke from a molding position towards an ejection position relative to the moveable mold half [0037]; the opening the injection mold and moving the ejector being done along a first axis of operation of the injection mold in relatively opposite directions of movement [0030, 0035].
Glaesener teaches the initial opening of the mold and the actuating of the stripper sleeve can be controlled to be performed sequentially [0067, 0069]; which prima facie obviously teaches during a second portion of the mold opening cycle of the injection mold, the second portion occurring later in time relative to the first portion of the mold opening cycle of the injection mold: a controller controlling the opening velocity of (i) the moveable mold half relative to the stationary mold half, and the (ii) the ejector to eject the molded parts relative to the moveable mold half [Claim 22].
Glaesener teaches the ejector actuator (Fig. 2B, item 922) ejects the molded article [0027] and is connected to the movable mold half section [0027] which can be the second core retainer section (Fig. 2B, item 133; [0037]).
Glaesener teaches the “ejector actuator can be a hydraulic actuator, a pneumatic actuator, an electro-mechanical actuator, or the like” [0027], which can control movement of the second core retainer section [0037], not the entire movable mold half (Fig. 2B, item 912).
Glaesener is silent on the mold open speed and ejector actuator forward speed being mechanically linked or controlled as a single parameter where the motion of one dictates the movement of the other component.
From these teachings, it is the mold open speed and ejector forward speed parameters have separate control actuators are understood to be controllable independently of each other in the art of Gleasener.
Glaesener is silent on the controlling executed such that the molded article is ejected from the molding component with a substantially zero departure-velocity along the first axis of operation the second portion being initiated at a predetermined portion of the mold opening cycle, the predetermined portion being when the molded article is at a final contact point with the molding component.
However, the prior art of PRW teaches a controller algorithm that “synchronizes the ejector forward speed with the mold open speed”, resulting in the molded parts falling “without any inherent momentum” in a central line out of the mold face [¶5]. PRW teaches parts falling at a substantially zero departure-velocity advantageously will not randomly bounce about after ejection or ricochet off the stationary mold face, delaying the mold closing [¶3].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to apply the controller instructions of synchronizing the ejector forward and the mold opening speeds, resulting in zero-departure velocities, taught by PRW, into the Glaesener molding controller apparatus ready for improvement in the same way. This modification would yield zero-departure velocities of ejected parts in the apparatus in Glaesener, predictably resulting in reduced mold closing times.
PRW teaches velocities of the moveable mold half and the ejector are controlled independently from each other by a controller algorithm [¶5].
PRW teaches the controlling velocity comprises matching velocity, in opposing directions, of one of the moveable mold half with the ejector, core insert, and stripper sleeve [¶5].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that since PRW teaches there are independent control parameters of mold opening speed and ejector speed, that these parameters would also be controlled independently during the initiation of movement of the movable mold half in the apparatus of Glaesener, in view of PRW.
4. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein during (i) the initiating movement of the moveable mold half and (ii) initiating movement of an ejector, the velocities of the moveable mold half and the ejector are controlled to minimize an overall mold opening time during the mold opening cycle.
With respect to claim 4, Glaesener, in view of PRW, does not explicitly teach minimizing the overall mold opening time during the mold opening cycle.
However, this claim element is considered a routine optimization step, and it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to optimize the molding process to reduce the overall mold opening time and to therefore increase production output. See MPEP 2144.04(II).
5. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the matching velocity, in opposing directions, of (i) the moveable mold half and (ii) the ejector is only executed during the second portion of the mold opening cycle of the injection mold, which substantially coincides with the predetermined portion of the mold opening cycle.
With respect to claim 5, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, Glaesener teaches the ejector is only executed during the second portion of the mold opening cycle of the injection mold, while PRW teaches matching velocity, in opposing directions, of (i) the moveable mold half and (ii) the ejector.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that each claim element applies in the apparatus of Glaesener, in view of PRW.
6. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 5, wherein the matching velocity is commenced a first pre-determined period of time before the predetermined portion of the mold opening cycle and continues for a second pre-determined period of time after the predetermined portion of the mold opening cycle.
With respect to claim 6, Glaesener, in view of PRW, teaches the ejector speed which equally opposes the mold opening speed commences at the middle of the mold open stroke; therefore, it is prima facie obvious the matching velocity is commenced a first pre-determined period of time in the mold cycle before the predetermined portion of the mold opening cycle and continues for a second pre-determined period of time after the predetermined portion of the mold opening cycle.
7. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein matching velocity comprises controlling at least one of (i) opening speed of the moveable mold half and (ii) speed of the ejector.
With respect to claim 7, as set forth in rejection of claim 1, PRW teaches matching velocity comprises controlling (i) opening speed of the moveable mold half and (ii) speed of the ejector, which are controlled independently from each other by a controller algorithm [¶5].
8. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the molded article is one of a plurality of molded articles that are moldable in the injection mold, and wherein matching velocity comprises matching at least one of: (a) velocity of the moveable mold half and (b) velocity of the ejector to an average departure-velocity of the plurality of molded articles.
With respect to claim 8, as set forth in rejection of claim 1, PRW teaches matching velocity comprises controlling at least one of (i) the opening speed of the moveable mold half and (ii) the speed of the ejector, which can be controlled independently from each other by a controller algorithm [¶5], wherein a plurality of molded products (Glaesener Fig. 4, items 102A-E; [0027]) would each prima facie obviously have a substantially zero departure-velocity.
9. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the molded article is one of a plurality of molded articles that are moldable in the injection mold, and wherein matching velocity comprises matching at least one of: (a) velocity of the moveable mold half and (b) velocity of the ejector to a departure-velocity of a slowest one of the plurality of molded articles.
With respect to claim 9, as set forth in rejection of claim 1, PRW teaches matching velocity comprises controlling at least one of (i) the opening speed of the moveable mold half and (ii) the speed of the ejector, which are controlled independently from each other by a controller algorithm [¶5], wherein a plurality of molded products (Glaesener Fig. 4, items 102A-E; [0027]) would each prima facie obviously be controlled to have a substantially zero departure-velocity.
PRW explicitly teaches all molded articles are ejected without any forward momentum [¶5]. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the velocity of the ejector would have a net-zero velocity to match the net-zero departure-velocity of the plurality of molded articles.
10. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the molded article is a closure having a threaded portion, and wherein the final contact point of the molded article with the molding component occurs when a stripper sleeve portion of the molding component clears the threaded portion.
With respect to claim 10, Glaesener teaches the molded article is a closure having a threaded portion (Fig. 3, item 102A, article with threads), and wherein the final contact point of the molded article with the molding component occurs when a stripper sleeve portion of the molding component clears the threaded portion [0035].
11. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the molded article is a closure having a tamper evident band (TEB), and wherein the final contact point of the molded article with the molding component occurs when the molding component engages only the TEB of the closure.
With respect to claim 11, Glaesener teaches an embodiment wherein the molded article is a closure having a tamper evident band (TEB) (Fig. 3, item 102A).
Glaesener does not explicitly teach the tamper evident band as the final contact point of the molded article with the molding component.
However, as tamper evident bands are commonly known to be located at the portion of the closure at the end of the threads furthest from the upper cap, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the TEB would be the contact point of the ejector to eject the articles from the mold.
12. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, where the method further comprises receiving, from an operator of the injection mold, an indication of a pre-determined ejection position, the pre-determined ejection position being associated with a position of the moveable mold half during its mold stroke and the ejector during its ejector stroke where the molded article is to depart from the molding component and wherein the controlling velocity comprises: commencing execution of controlling velocity at a pre-determined ejection position before the pre-determined ejection position.
With respect to claim 12, Glaesener, in view of PRW, teach the method further comprises receiving, from an operator of the injection mold, an indication of a pre-determined ejection position, the pre-determined ejection position being associated with a position of the moveable mold half during its mold stroke and the ejector during its ejector stroke where the molded article is to depart from the molding component and wherein the controlling velocity comprises: commencing execution of controlling velocity at a pre-determined ejection position before the pre-determined ejection position.
However, these claim elements are considered a routine optimization step, and it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing for an operator to optimize the molding process to set the optimal position in the mold opening cycle where the ejector stroke commences movement, resulting in where the molded products are ejected at a net-zero velocity. The operator would prima facie obviously select this position to ensure the products are clear of the stationary mold at ejection, and would fall at a desired position for collection.
13. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12, wherein the commencing execution comprises delaying starting an ejector profile execution.
With respect to claim 13, Glaesener teaches the commencing execution comprises delaying starting an ejector profile execution, as the mold opens about halfway (between Figures 2A to 2B) of its full movement before reaching the first aperture area (Fig. 2B, item 154A) where the article can be ejected when the ejector movement commences.
14. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the molded article is one of a plurality of molded articles that are moldable in the injection mold, and wherein controlling velocity is executed such that to minimize velocity differential between a first departure-velocity of a slowest molded article and a second departure-velocity of a fastest molded article, the first departure-velocity and the second departure-velocity being along the first axis of operation of the injection mold.
With respect to claim 14, as set forth in rejection of claim 1, PRW teaches matching velocity comprises controlling at least one of (i) the opening speed of the moveable mold half and (ii) the speed of the ejector, which are controlled independently from each other by a controller algorithm [¶5], wherein each of a plurality of molded products (Glaesener Fig. 4, items 102A-E; [0027]) would prima facie obviously have a matching and substantially zero departure-velocity.
PRW explicitly teaches all molded articles are ejected without any forward momentum [¶5]. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the velocity of the ejector would have a net-zero velocity to match the net-zero departure-velocity of the plurality of molded articles along the first axis of operation of the injection mold.
15. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein controlling velocity is executed such that the molded article is ejected from the injection mold substantially only in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to the first axis of operation of the injection mold.
With respect to claim 15, Glaesener, in view of PRW, teaches a horizontally-opening molding machine (Glaesener Fig. 1), with PRW teaching a net-zero ejection speed in the horizontal direction as the moveable mold half and the product ejector have matching velocities in opposing directions [¶5].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the molded articles are ejected and will travel vertically, due to gravity, from the injection mold substantially only in a plane that is substantially perpendicular to the first axis of operation of the injection mold.
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 GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights