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 1/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that Abe does not teach an injection molding tool, however, all of applicant’s arguments rely on an assumption that the use of a plunger is not injection molding. This is simply untrue. The examiner has provided evidentiary reference MPI which discusses plunger injection molding. Furthermore, an encapsulation mold is just an injection mold configured such that inserts placed within the cavities are entirely covered with the injected material. The examiner is convinced that the added amendment that the injection molding tool is free of a resin-heating pot or plunger would render Abe unable to anticipate claim 1, but the rejection of claims 21 and 26 and dependents as well as the rejection of claim 1 utilizing Arai would still hold. Applicant argues Abe does not teach a top plate and the examiner has merely inferred it existence. The examiner was describing the visual representation in [Fig 1, 4-6] and the upper plate is explicitly disclosed (labeled as ‘D’) in Fig 26, 29 and elsewhere in the Abe. For the sake of arguendo, even if Abe did not explicitly state an upper plate, implicit disclosure is still a disclosure 2144.01. Applicant makes numerous arguments in regards to the sprue channel, ie that a sprue channel must be connected to an injection molding machine/connected to a nozzle, however, a sprue channel is just a relatively large channel through which molten material passes where the hardened material within is culled when molding is complete, which the pot of Abe would meet. Applicant relies on “configured to” language and that within Abe a resin block is melted in the pot. However, configured to only requires being capable of performing the recited function and as the material is melted into a molten state within this section, this would comprise a form of receiving molten material albeit in a different mode to that of applicant. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant argues that the examiner’s arguments rely on “labeling,” but apparatus claims are defined their structure and so analogous structures meet the claim regardless of how they are referred to.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that claim 2 requires second abutting side faces (ie a separation plane) that forms the mold cavities between the closing mold part and the second mold part. This is an additional set of abutting side faces to the abutting side faces in claim 1 that form the runner channel. In other words, in claim 2, the runner channel and the cavities must be in different separation planes and the mold cavities cannot be formed by an abutting face that forms the runner channel. Hence, this would be a mutually exclusive embodiment claim 25. The examiner requests that applicant confirm if this interpretation is correct, and, if not, provide explanation to how claim 2 should be interpreted.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are 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.
There is no disclosure within the specification regarding what applicant would or would not consider “a resin-heating pot,” see MPEP 2173.05(i). While Fig 1 would provide adequate disclosure for the feature of being free of a plunger, the divit of the sprue (bottom below 5) below the fluid conduit 9 could be considered a pot.
Claim 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
While limitations are not inherently indefinite, there is no disclosure within the specification regarding what applicant would or would not consider “a resin-heating pot,” see MPEP 2173.05(i). While Fig 1 would provide adequate disclosure for the feature of being free of a plunger, the divit of the sprue (bottom below 5) below the fluid conduit 9 could be considered a pot.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (JPS 62220313) in view of Abe (US 5556647).
As to claim 1, Arai teaches an injection molding tool configured to be mounted in an injection molding apparatus for automated molding of work pieces in plastics comprising [Abstract],at least two separate mold parts (6, 8, 4, 12, 14, 16) forming a set of mold cavities (4a) having abutting side faces (y1) on a common mold separation plane (y1) forming at least one main runner channel extending between a sprue channel (6a) and a runner branch/junction (where the runner branches into 8a2, 8a1, 8a4) [Fig 1-7], the runner being formed by opposing surfaces of mold parts (6) and (8) along the separation plane [Fig 1-7]; the main runner channel configured to branch into two or more branched runner channels (branches into 8a2, 8a1, 8a4) leading to the mold cavities and a runner junction downstream from the sprue channel [Fig 1-7], -the at least two separate -mold parts -comprising, an inlet -mold part -comprising a -mold inlet (1a) and -the sprue channel (6a) for injection of liquid plastics from the injection-molding apparatus configured to receive injection of liquid plastics from the injection molding apparatus in a molten state and the injection molding tool is free of any internal resin-heating pot or plunger [Fig 1-7]; and a second -mold part (4, 8, 14, 16).
Arai does not explicitly state that a linear separating wall with a uniform linear profile divides the main runner channel into 2 linear, immediately abutting, and parallel flow channels.
Abe teaches a device for injection molding [Abstract] wherein the runners are divided by a separating wall (3a, 4a, 5a) into 2 parallel flow passages [Fig 1, 4-6] as this prevents waste and void formation from enlarged runners, prevents prematurely set material from clogging runners, and uniformity/fluidity of the resin is increased [col 4 line 34-45, col 5 line 12-42, col 2 line 15-35]. 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 Arai and included a uniform, linear separating wall that divided the channel into 2 parallel, immediately abutting flow channels open to one another such that the separating wall defined part of a demolded runner cross-section upon opening of the mold, as suggested by Abe, in order to improve flow pattern and strength properties.
As the combination of Arai and Abe disclose the same geometry of the conduits when the separating wall of Abe is incorporated, this would result in the same reliably removable runner.
As to claim 2, Arai teaches further comprising a closing mold part (4), and wherein the second mold part (8) is arranged between the inlet mold part (6) and the closing mold part (8), and wherein the closing mold part and the second mold part have second abutting side faces facing a second common mold separation plane (x1), and where the second abutting side faces form the mold cavities [Fig 1-7].
As to claim 3, Arai both the two linear and parallel flow channels as explained above and Arai teaches a cross section is polygonal [Fig 2-6].
As to claim 4, Arai teaches the main channel extend from the sprue channel, and the runner junction is formed by the runner branch [Fig 1-7] and the combination of Arai and Abe teach the main runner channel is comprised of 2 linear, immediately abutting, and parallel flow channels.
As to claim 5, Arai teaches the separating wall is configured such that the two linear and parallel flow channels are open to each other at the side of the linear and parallel flow channels- closest to each other.
Abe teaches a device for injection molding [Abstract] wherein the runners are divided by a separating wall into 2 parallel flow passages [Fig 1, 4-6] as this prevents waste and void formation from enlarged runners, prevents prematurely set material from clogging runners, and uniformity/fluidity of the resin is increased [col 4 line 34-45, col 5 line 12-42, col 2 line 15-35]. 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 Arai and included a uniform, linear separating wall that divided the channel into 2 parallel, immediately abutting flow channels open to one another, as suggested by Abe, in order to improve flow pattern and strength properties.
As to claim 6, Arai teaches the two or more branched runner channels form a cold runner as no heater is depicted or disclosed in the runner plate and Arai notes that the resin cools in 8b [Fig 1,2].
As to claim 7, Arai does not explicitly state the mold cavities are arranged in the same mold separation plane as the two or more branched runner channels.
Abe teaches a device for injection molding [Abstract] wherein the runners are divided by a separating wall into 2 parallel flow passages with mold cavities arranged in the same separation plane as the runner channels [Fig 1, 4-6, (Fig 1 displays the bottom halve of the mold but would include an upper plate else the resin would not travel through the runners)] as this prevents waste and void formation from enlarged runners, prevents prematurely set material from clogging runners, and uniformity/fluidity of the resin is increased [col 4 line 34-45, col 5 line 12-42, col 2 line 15-35]. 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 Arai and included runners and mold cavities in the same separation plane, as suggested by Abe, in order to improve flow pattern and strength properties.
As to claim 8, Arai does not explicitly state the at least one main runner channel has a cross-section larger than a cross-section of each of the two or more branched runner channels.
Abe teaches a device for injection molding [Abstract] wherein the runners are divided by a separating wall into 2 parallel flow passages with mold cavities arranged in the same separation plane as the runner channels [Fig 1, 4-6] and the main runners [Fig 4] have a larger cross section (3)than the branches (4, 6) [Fig 5, 6] as this prevents waste and void formation from enlarged runners, prevents prematurely set material from clogging runners, and uniformity/fluidity of the resin is increased [col 4 line 34-45, col 5 line 12-42, col 2 line 15-35]. 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 Arai and included runners and mold cavities in the same separation plane, as suggested by Abe, in order to improve flow pattern and strength properties.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (JPS 62220313) in view of Abe (US 556647), as applied to claims 1-8 above, and in further view of Xiao (US 2009/0246312). Note this is an alternative rejection of claim 6
As to claim 6, Arai teaches the two or more branched runner channels form a cold runner as no heater is depicted or disclosed in the runner plate and Arai notes that the resin cools in 8b [Fig 1,2].
Alternatively, Xiao teaches an injection molding device [Abstract] wherein 2 mold parts come together and the mold cavities (240) are arranged in same separation plane of runner branches (250) with the main runner channel (230) is a cold runner channels as it produces a “cold slug” [0015, 0017, Fig 1, 3] as cavities in the parting plane had demonstrated success at creating molding parts [0016, 0017, 0019]. 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 Arai and had the one main runner channel has a cross-section larger than a cross-section of each of the two or more branched runner channels, as suggested by Xiao, as this had demonstrated success at creating molded parts via injection molding.
Claims 21-27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US 556647) in view of Xiao (US 2009/0246312).
As to claim 21, Abe teaches an injection molding tool for molding plastic parts [Abstract], comprising an inlet mold part (1) defining a sprue channel (2) for receiving molten plastic, a second mold part (an undisplayed upper plate necessary for the runners to function else the resin would just overflow) positioned adjacent the inlet mold part, the inlet and second mold parts having abutting side faces defining runner channels along a mold separation plane, and a main runner (3) channel defined by the abutting side faces of the mold parts along the mold separation plane and extending from the sprue channel to a cold runner branch (4,6), the main runner channel comprising two parallel, side-by-side conduits extending downstream to the runner branch, the conduits being immediately adjacent and at least partly separated by a straight linear wall (3a, 4a, 6a) of substantially uniform profile along their length, the conduits being open to one another along adjacent sides [Fig 1, 4-6], thereby forming a cross-sectional demoldable runner geometry that stiffens a runner solidified in the channel and facilitates reliable demolding of the runner in one piece which as the runner is the same geometry as that of the instant claim the same stiffened runner would result.
Abe does not explicitly state that the runner and branches are cold runners.
Xiao teaches an injection molding device [Abstract] wherein 2 mold parts come together and the mold cavities (240) are arranged in same separation plane of runner branches (250) with the main runner channel (230) is a cold runner channels as it produces a “cold slug” [0015, 0017, Fig 1, 3] and cavities in the parting plane had demonstrated success at creating molding parts [0016, 0017, 0019]. 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 Arai and had the one main runner channel and branches be cold runner channels, as suggested by Xiao, as this had demonstrated success at creating molded parts via injection molding.
As to claim 22, Abe teaches the conduits extend linearly from the sprue channel to the cold runner branch without intersecting angles [Fig 1, 4-6].
As to claim 23, Abe conduit has a cross-sectional shape selected from circular, semi-circular, elliptical, semi-elliptical, or polygonal [Fig 4-6].
As to claim 24, Abe teaches the cold main runner channel (3) [Fig 4] has a cross-sectional area larger than each cold runner branch (4, 6) [Fig 5, 6].
As to claim 25, Abe teaches the mold cavities are arranged in the same separation plane as the cold runner branches [Fig 1].
As to claim 26, Abe teaches an injection molding tool for molding plastic parts [Abstract], comprising an inlet mold part (1 or D) [Fig 1] defining a sprue channel (2) for receiving molten plastic, an intermediate mold part (9 or 10) [Fig 1], a closing mold part (D an undisplayed upper plate necessary for the runners to function else the resin would just overflow or 1) positioned adjacent the inlet mold part, the inlet and second mold parts having abutting side faces defining runner channels along a mold separation plane, and a main runner (3) channel defined by the abutting side faces of the mold parts along the mold separation plane and extending from the sprue channel to a cold runner branch (4,6), the cold main runner channel comprising two parallel, side-by-side conduits extending downstream to the cold runner branch, the conduits being immediately adjacent and at least partly separated by a straight linear wall (3a, 4a, 6a) of substantially uniform profile along their length, the conduits being open to one another along adjacent sides [Fig 1, 4-6], thereby forming a cross-sectional demoldable runner geometry that stiffens a runner solidified in the channel and facilitates reliable demolding of the runner in one piece which as the runner is the same geometry as that of the instant claim the same stiffened runner would result.
Abe does not explicitly state that the runner and branches are cold runners.
Xiao teaches an injection molding device [Abstract] wherein 2 mold parts come together and the mold cavities (240) are arranged in same separation plane of runner branches (250) with the main runner channel (230) is a cold runner channels as it produces a “cold slug” [0015, 0017, Fig 1, 3] and cavities in the parting plane had demonstrated success at creating molding parts [0016, 0017, 0019]. 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 Arai and had the one main runner channel and branches be cold runner channels, as suggested by Xiao, as this had demonstrated success at creating molded parts via injection molding.
As to claim 27, Abe teaches the cold main runner channel (3) [Fig 4] has a cross-sectional area larger than each cold runner branch (4, 6) [Fig 5, 6].
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 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