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 8/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. While Abe does teach a single mold inlet and sprue channel, the term comprising “is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps” see MPEP 2111.03. Applicant argues that Abe is nonanalogous art because it is an encapsulation mold, but an encapsulation mold is just an injection mold configured such that inserts placed within the cavity are entirely covered with the injected material. Moreover, the delivery of resin material to multiple cavities would be reasonably pertinent to injection molding as even delivery of material is a concern in both typical injection molding and encapsulation.
As to Arai, the examiner does not utilize this reference in the current rejection. Applicant argues that the rib of Abe cannot be read as the separating wall because it does not extend into the center of the channel, but neither does applicant’s in Fig 2-4. The examiner reiterates: applicant argues several elements in regards to the main runner channel, the separating wall, and the parallel, linear conduits. These features are illustrated in Fig 2-4 wherein 9 is the main runner, 13 is the separating wall, and the 2 fluid conduits are 12.
PNG
media_image1.png
378
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
All of these features are disclosed in Abe, with the main runner being 3 or 4, the separating wall be 3A or 4A, and each fluid conduit being the 2 portions of the runner on each side of the runner. While Fig 4 only shows the lower plate the conduit is created by the combination of the lower and upper plate.
PNG
media_image2.png
606
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
300
196
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
240
142
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In all of applicant’s arguments, applicant never expresses why these elements are inadequately read on the claimed structural features. Applicant even argues that Abe does not teach adequate separation into 2 conduits (4rth argument) but then argues that the separating wall of Abe is not open enough between to the 2 conduits (5th argument). 3A and 4A would be capable of providing this feature at least to the same extent as that of 13 of the instant application. As Abe has the separating wall within the main runner channel, a plastic runner byproduct would be formed with a rib (the divit created by the separating wall 3A). Moreover, As seen in Abe Fig 1, the runner channel does extend from the sprue channel to the branch.
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 1-3, 8, 21-24, 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2010/0178376) in view of Abe (US 5556647).
As to claim 1, Chang 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 (21, 23, 22) forming a set of mold cavities (22) having abutting side faces on a common mold separation plane forming at least one main runner channel (214) extending between a sprue channel (213) and a runner branch (233) [Fig 2], the runner being formed by opposing surfaces of mold parts (21) and (23) along the separation plane [Fig 2]; the main runner channel leading to the mold cavities and a runner junction downstream from the sprue channel [Fig 2], the at least two separate mold parts comprising, an inlet -mold part -comprising a mold inlet (top of 213) and -the sprue channel (213) 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 2]; and a second -mold part (23, 22).
Chang 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 Chang and included a uniform, linear separating wall (3) 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 Chang 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. When the linear separation wall/fluid conduits of Abe is incorporated into Chang would result in a solidified runner with continuous rib (ie the divit created by the separation wall once the runner hardens) which would allow for demolding in one piece.
the combination of Chang and Abe teach the main runner channel is comprised of 2 linear, immediately abutting, and parallel flow channels as the divit of change would divide the runner channel in 2.
Chang does not explicitly state 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 Chang 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.
Chang teaches the runner channels form a cold runner as no heater is depicted or disclosed in the runner plate [Fig 2] and the runner becomes a unitary scrap (ie is cooled and solidified) [0021-0025].
Additionally, Chang teaches the channels extend linearly in parallel from the sprue channel to the cold runner branch without intersecting angles [Fig 2]. Chang conduit (214) has a cross-sectional shape selected from circular, semi-circular, elliptical, semi-elliptical, or polygonal as this would comprise . 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 2, Chang teaches further comprising a closing mold part (22), and wherein the second mold part (23) is arranged between the inlet mold part (21) and the closing mold part (22), and wherein the closing mold part and the second mold part have second abutting side faces facing a second common mold separation plane , and where the second abutting side faces form the mold cavities [Fig 2, 4].
As to claim 3, the combination of Chang and Abe teaches the two linear and parallel flow channels as explained above and Chang teaches a cross section is polygonal [Fig 2, 4]. Moreover the flow channels incorporated from Abe are at elliptical/semi-elliptical [Fig 5] or polygonal [Fig 4]. Further still, the qualifier “at least partly” and the subsequent listing of various chapes would comprise virtually any cross section.
As to claim 8, Chang teaches 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 [Fig 2, 4].
Additionally, 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 [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 Chang and included the main runner with a larger area than the branches, as suggested by Abe, in order to improve flow pattern and strength properties.
As to claim 21 and 26, Chang 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 3separate mold parts ( inlet mold part 21, second mold part 23, closing mold part 22) forming a set of mold cavities (222) having abutting side faces on a common mold separation plane forming at least one main runner channel (214) extending between a sprue channel (213) and a runner branch/junction [Fig 2, 4], the runner being formed by opposing surfaces of mold parts (21) and (23) 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 (21) comprising a mold inlet (1a) and the sprue channel (213) 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 2, 4]; and a second mold part (23).
Chang 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 Chang and included a uniform, linear separating wall (3) 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 Chang 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.
Chang teaches the main channel extend from the sprue channel, and the runner junction is formed by the runner branch [Fig 2-4] and the combination of Chang and Abe teach the main runner channel is comprised of 2 linear, immediately abutting, and parallel flow channels.
Chang does not explicitly state 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 Chang 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.
Chang teaches the runner channels form a cold runner as no heater is depicted or disclosed in the runner plate [Fig 2] and the runner becomes a unitary waste scrap (ie is cooled and solidified) [0021-0025]. As the separating wall as incorporated from Abe would partially bisect the scrap part and both the runner configurations of Chang and Abe are symmetrical, this would be a dual demoldable runner geometry. When the linear separation wall/fluid conduits of Abe is incorporated into Chang would result in a solidified runner with continuous rib (ie the divit created by the separation wall once the runner hardens) which would allow for demolding in one piece.
The combination of Chang and Abe teaches the two linear and parallel flow channels as explained above and Chang teaches a cross section is polygonal [Fig 2, 4]. Moreover the flow channels incorporated from Abe are at elliptical/semi-elliptical [Fig 5] or polygonal [Fig 4]. Chang teaches the cold main runner channel has a cross-sectional area larger than each cold runner branch [Fig 2, 4].
Chang teaches further comprising a closing mold part (22), and wherein the second mold part (23) is arranged between the inlet mold part (21) and the closing mold part (23), 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 2-4].
As to claim 22,The combination of Chang and Abe teaches the conduits extend linearly from the sprue channel to the cold runner branch [Chang Fig 2, 4].
As to claim 23, the combination of Chang and Abe teaches the two linear and parallel flow channels as explained above and Chang teaches a cross section is polygonal [Fig 2, 4]. Moreover the flow channels incorporated from Abe are at elliptical/semi-elliptical [Fig 5] or polygonal [Fig 4]. Further still, the qualifier “at least partly” and the subsequent listing of various chapes would comprise virtually any cross section.
As to claim 24 and 27, Chang teaches 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 [Fig 2, 4].
Additionally, 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 [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 Chang and included the main runner with a larger area than the branches, as suggested by Abe, in order to improve flow pattern and strength properties.
As to claim 28, The combination of Chang and Abe teaches the opposing surface of the abutting side face of the mold parts form the 2 runner flow channels along the common mold plane as Chang teaches the runner is formed by the abutting side faces [Chang Fig 2, 4] Abe teaches the separating wall that splits the runner into 2 runner flow channels.
As to claim 29, Chang teaches the abutting side face 232a is planar [Fig 2, 4, 0018].
As to claim 30, Chang in view of Abe as in incorporated above teaches that the runner may have symmetrical abutting side faces about the separation plane [Fig 29, col 3 line 53-62].
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
Prosecution Insights