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 . Examiner’s Answer
In view of the appeal brief filed on (10 – 6 – 2025), PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Response to Arguments
It was determined during an appeal conference on (1 – 5 – 2024) that prosecution would be reopened. In particular, applicant’s arguments, see (Pgs. 16 – 20), filed (10 – 6 – 2025), with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 2, 4, 7 – 11, 13 & 15 – 16 under U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takashi Arai (US 4752199 A, hereinafter Arai) in view of An et al. (US 20170210888 A, hereinafter An).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4, 7 – 11, 13 & 15 – 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Currently claim 1 reads “…the injection molding material that are is aligned, respectively, with the plurality of gating structures and are is parallel with respect to an interior surface that defines the forming cavity…” it should read “the injection molding material that are cavity…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4, 7 – 11, 13 & 15 – 16 is/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. Currently newly amended claim 1 requires that “…the respective flows of the injection molding material for each gating structure of the plurality of gating structures flowing in a single direction, through each respective gating structure and through the mold…”. Noting, that applicant’s specifications only suggest on ([0022]) that the gas-blocking flakes 28 tend to align within a direction 66 of a flow 68 of the homogenous mixture 62 of the polymer material 60 and the gas-blocking flakes 28. In this manner, the elongated surfaces 32 of the various gas-blocking flakes 28 will tend to be oriented parallel with the direction 66 of the flow 68 of the homogenous mixture 62 as it moves through the mold 64 for forming the trim breaker 10. This direction 66 of the flow 68 is also typically parallel with the eventual outer surface 34 of the trim breaker 10. As such, applicant’s specifications make no disclosure regarding the respective flows of the injection molding material for each gating structure of the plurality of gating structures flowing in a single direction. Additionally, in applicant’s (Fig. 6) it illustrates the direction 66 of travel for the material flow from a gating structure 82. It is understood that the material will continue to travel until it reaches the subsequent branch (and gating structure 82). At this point, the injected material will turn and mix with the incoming injected material from the subsequent gating structure 82. Accordingly, the injected material turning and mixing with the incoming material from a subsequent gating structure is understood to provide for a different (not single) direction that the initial direction of the travel for the injected material from its originating gating structure 82.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 nonobviousness.
A.) Claim(s) 1, 7 – 8 & 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi Arai (US 4752199 A, hereinafter Arai) in view of An et al. (US 20170210888 A, hereinafter An) Regarding claim 1,
A method for forming a trim breaker, the method comprising steps of:
disposing gas-blocking flakes into a polymer material to form an injection molding material;
forming a mold that defines a forming cavity,
wherein the mold includes a plurality of gating structures;
injecting the injection molding material into the mold via the plurality of gating structures,
wherein each respective gating structure of the plurality of gating structures is positioned in a parallel configuration with respect to a corresponding interior wall of the mold; and
directing respective flows of the injection molding material into the mold,
wherein the plurality of gating structures in the parallel configuration with respect to the corresponding interior walls produces the respective flows of the injection molding material that are is aligned, respectively, with the plurality of gating structures and are is parallel with respect to an interior surface that defines the forming cavity,
the respective flows of the injection molding material for each gating structure of the plurality of gating structures flowing in a single direction, through each respective gating structure and through the mold,
wherein the respective flows of the injection molding material produce an aligned configuration of the gas-blocking flakes in an ultimate position within the injection molding material that is parallel with the interior surface of the corresponding interior walls and the respective gatingstructures to define the trim breaker.
Arai teaches the following:
, b.), c.), d.), e.), f.), g.) & h.) (Col. 4, lines 17 – 25) teaches that the resin A is injected into the cavity 4a through various runners. Consequently, as shown in (Fig. 4B), the resin A is uniformly injected, with almost uniform pressure. After a predetermined amount of the resin A is injected into the molding cavity, the needle valve 1b of the first injection cylinder unit is closed, and the needle valve 2b of the second injection cylinder unit 2 is opened to inject the resin B layer. (Col. 5, lines 53 – 55) teaches that the resins may be polycarbonate resins. As illustrated in (Figs. 1, 3A – 4A & 5A – 6A), each of the respective gating structure of the plurality of gating structures is positioned in a parallel configuration with respect to a corresponding interior wall of the mold, such that the respective flows of the injection molding material are aligned, respectively, with the plurality of gating structures and are parallel with respect to an interior surface that defines the forming cavity, providing for the plurality of gating structures flowing in a single direction, through each respective gating structure and through the mold. The (Abstract) notes that this configuration provides for a resin flow toward the sprues into a same direction and to achieve uniform resin pressure in the proceeding direction, thus realizing uniform injection into the runners.
The configuration of Arai is understood to be equivalent to that of applicant. As such, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claim 1, Arai is silent regarding the polymer composition utilized for injection molding comprising gas blocking flakes. In analogous art for a polymer composition, (Abstract) for injection molded parts, ([0078]), An suggests details regarding the polymer composition for injection molding, and in this regard, An teaches the following:
& i.) ([0075]) teaches that the preparation of the compositions according to the present invention may be carried out by mixing the polymer components with the possibly present reinforcing filler and the other additives according to techniques known in the art. ([0075]) teaches that the elastomeric composition is incorporated into injection molded parts. ([0067]) teaches that the elastomeric composition can comprise at least about 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, or 50 phr of one or more fillers, based on the total weight of the elastomers. Recalling, that the fillers that can improve the thermophysical properties of the elastomeric composition including the modulus, strength, and expansion coefficient.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing injection molded parts that comprises a polymer material of Arai. By modifying and optimizing the composition to comprise a polymer composition with fillers including glass and / or mica fillers, as taught by An. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement and optimize the composition to comprise a polymer composition with fillers such as glass and / or mica fillers as it provides a means for tailoring the compositions thermophysical properties including the modulus, strength, and expansion coefficient, ([0066]). Accordingly, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the use of a known material, i.e, polymer with fillers, in a known environment, namely injection molding for its intended use tailoring the compositions thermophysical properties including the modulus, strength, and expansion coefficient, provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the step of disposing the gas-blocking flakes into the polymer material includes disposing glass particles into the polymer material.
Regarding Claim 1, Arai is silent regarding the polymer composition utilized for injection molding comprising gas blocking flakes. In analogous art as applied above, An suggests details regarding the polymer composition for injection molding, and in this regard, An teaches the following:
([0075]) teaches that the preparation of the compositions according to the present invention may be carried out by mixing the polymer components with the possibly present reinforcing filler and the other additives according to techniques known in the art. ([0075]) teaches that the elastomeric composition is incorporated into injection molded parts. ([0067]) teaches that the elastomeric composition can comprise at least about 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, or 50 phr of one or more fillers, based on the total weight of the elastomers. Recalling, that the fillers that can improve the thermophysical properties of the elastomeric composition including the modulus, strength, and expansion coefficient.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the step of directing the flow of the injection molding material into the mold includes selectively operating at least one gating structure of the plurality of gating structures of the mold.
Arai teaches the following:
After a predetermined amount of the layer resin A is injected into the molding cavity, the needle valve 1b of the first injection cylinder unit is closed, and the needle valve 2b of the second injection cylinder unit 2 is opened to inject the layer resin B. As such, the step of directing the flow of the injection molding material into the mold includes selectively operating at least one gating structure of the plurality of gating structures of the mold.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 7,
Wherein the plurality of gating structures are positioned to promote the flow of the injection molding material that is parallel with the interior surface that defines the forming cavity.
Arai teaches the following:
(Col. 4, lines 17 – 25) teaches that the resin A is injected into the cavity 4a through various runners. Consequently, as shown in (Fig. 4B), the resin A is uniformly injected, with almost uniform pressure. After a predetermined amount of the resin A is injected into the molding cavity, the needle valve 1b of the first injection cylinder unit is closed, and the needle valve 2b of the second injection cylinder unit 2 is opened to inject the resin B layer. (Col. 5, lines 53 – 55) teaches that the resins may be polycarbonate resins. As illustrated in (Figs. 1, 3A – 4A & 5A – 6A), each of the respective gating structure of the plurality of gating structures is positioned in a parallel configuration with respect to a corresponding interior wall of the mold, such that the respective flows of the injection molding material are aligned, respectively, with the plurality of gating structures and are parallel with respect to an interior surface that defines the forming cavity, providing for the plurality of gating structures flowing in a single direction, through each respective gating structure and through the mold
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the step of disposing the gas-blocking flakes into the polymer material includes disposing the gas-blocking flakes in a range of from approximately 10 percent to 40 percent by volume of the injection molding material.
Regarding Claim 10, Arai is silent regarding the polymer composition utilized for injection molding. In analogous art as applied above in claim 1, An suggests details regarding the polymer composition for injection molding, and in this regard, An teaches the following:
([0067]) teaches that the elastomeric composition can comprise at least about 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, or 50 phr of one or more fillers, based on the total weight of the elastomers. Recalling, that the fillers that can improve the thermophysical properties of the elastomeric composition including the modulus, strength, and expansion coefficient.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Furthermore, due to the impact of the filler i.e., mica and/or glass has on the composition, the case law regarding for result effective variable may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
B.) Claim(s) 2, 11, 13 & 15 – 16 as applied to claim 1, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai in view of An and in further view of William Diamond (US 2809764 A, hereinafter Diamond)Regarding Claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising:
disposing an epoxy coating on at least a portion of an outer surface of the trim breaker.
Regarding Claim 2, Arai as modified by An is silent regarding the applying an epoxy coating after injection molding the article. In analogous art for a polymer composition that can be pressure pumped into a mold, (Col. 3, lines 1-5), Diamond suggests details regarding implementing an epoxy coating on the article after being fabricated and in this regard, Diamond teaches the following:
(Claim 1) teaches a layer of transparent low-heat conducting epoxy-resin composition covering said decorative material and filling a space there above that extends between said slotted members. Highlighting, as shown in (Fig. 2) the edging members 20 and 21 which comprise the plastic material are found to have an epoxy coating 23, on both their top exterior portion and side exterior portion (side walls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing injection molded parts that comprises a polymer material of Arai as modified by An. By further modifying the article to include an epoxy coating, as taught by Diamond. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement an epoxy coating due to providing an excellent moisture seal around the outer edges of said edge members, (Col. 5, lines 1-3) and allows for incorporating therein a coloring pigment which will aid in harmonizing said material with a particular adjoining color scheme, (Col. 3, lines 36-49) additionally tailoring the heat insulating properties, (Col. 3, lines 42-44). As such, the implementation of an epoxy coating is understood to impact various aspects of the article fabricated including the color, moisture resistance and heat insulating properties. The use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 11,
A method for forming a trim breaker, the method comprising steps of:
disposing gas-blocking flakes into a polymer material to form an injection molding material;
injecting the injection molding material into a mold via a plurality of gating structures;
directing respective flows of the injection molding material into the mold,
wherein the plurality of gating structures are aligned with walls of the mold, respectively, to produce the respective flows of the injection molding material that move through each gating structure and through the mold in a single respective direction, the respective flows being is aligned with the gating structures and parallel with an interior surface that defines a forming cavity, respectively,
wherein the respective flows of the injection molding materialproduce an aligned configuration of the gas-blocking flakes that, in an ultimate position within the injection molding material, generally orients a longitudinal axis of each gas blocking flake of a plurality of gas-blocking flakes to be parallel with the interior surface of the forming cavity to define the trim breaker; and
disposing posing an epoxy coating on at least a portion of an outer surface of the trim breaker.
Arai teaches the following:
, b.), c.) & d.) (Col. 4, lines 17 – 25) teaches that the resin A is injected into the cavity 4a through various runners. Consequently, as shown in (Fig. 4B), the resin A is uniformly injected, with almost uniform pressure. After a predetermined amount of the resin A is injected into the molding cavity, the needle valve 1b of the first injection cylinder unit is closed, and the needle valve 2b of the second injection cylinder unit 2 is opened to inject the resin B layer. (Col. 5, lines 53 – 55) teaches that the resins may be polycarbonate resins. As illustrated in (Figs. 1, 3A – 4A & 5A – 6A), each of the respective gating structure of the plurality of gating structures is positioned in a parallel configuration with respect to a corresponding interior wall of the mold, such that the respective flows of the injection molding material are aligned, respectively, with the plurality of gating structures and are parallel with respect to an interior surface that defines the forming cavity, providing for the plurality of gating structures flowing in a single direction, through each respective gating structure and through the mold. The (Abstract) notes that this configuration provides for a resin flow toward the sprues into a same direction and to achieve uniform resin pressure in the proceeding direction, thus realizing uniform injection into the runners.
The configuration of Arai is understood to be equivalent to that of applicant. As such, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claim 11, Arai is silent regarding the polymer composition utilized for injection molding comprising gas blocking flakes. In analogous art for a polymer composition, (Abstract) for injection molded parts, ([0078]), An suggests details regarding the polymer composition for injection molding, and in this regard, An teaches the following:
& e.) ([0075]) teaches that the preparation of the compositions according to the present invention may be carried out by mixing the polymer components with the possibly present reinforcing filler and the other additives according to techniques known in the art. ([0075]) teaches that the elastomeric composition is incorporated into injection molded parts. ([0067]) teaches that the elastomeric composition can comprise at least about 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, or 50 phr of one or more fillers, based on the total weight of the elastomers. Recalling, that the fillers that can improve the thermophysical properties of the elastomeric composition including the modulus, strength, and expansion coefficient.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing injection molded parts that comprises a polymer material of Arai. By modifying and optimizing the composition to comprise a polymer composition with fillers including glass and / or mica fillers, as taught by An. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement and optimize the composition to comprise a polymer composition with fillers such as glass and / or mica fillers as it provides a means for tailoring the compositions thermophysical properties including the modulus, strength, and expansion coefficient, ([0066]). Accordingly, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the use of a known material, i.e, polymer with fillers, in a known environment, namely injection molding for its intended use tailoring the compositions thermophysical properties including the modulus, strength, and expansion coefficient, provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 11, Arai as modified by An is silent regarding the applying an epoxy coating after injection molding the article. In analogous art for a polymer composition that can be pressure pumped into a mold, (Col. 3, lines 1-5), Diamond suggests details regarding implementing an epoxy coating on the article after being fabricated and in this regard, Diamond teaches the following:
(Claim 1) teaches a layer of transparent low-heat conducting epoxy-resin composition covering said decorative material and filling a space there above that extends between said slotted members. Highlighting, as shown in (Fig. 2) the edging members 20 and 21 which comprise the plastic material are found to have an epoxy coating 23, on both their top exterior portion and side exterior portion (side walls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing injection molded parts that comprises a polymer material of Arai as modified by An. By further modifying the article to include an epoxy coating, as taught by Diamond. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement an epoxy coating due to providing an excellent moisture seal around the outer edges of said edge members, (Col. 5, lines 1-3) and allows for incorporating therein a coloring pigment which will aid in harmonizing said material with a particular adjoining color scheme, (Col. 3, lines 36-49) additionally tailoring the heat insulating properties, (Col. 3, lines 42-44). As such, the implementation of an epoxy coating is understood to impact various aspects of the article fabricated including the color, moisture resistance and heat insulating properties. The use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 11,
Wherein the step of disposing the gas-blocking flakes into the polymer material includes combining the gas-blocking flakes and the polymer material to form a homogenous mixture.
Regarding Claim 13, Arai is silent regarding the polymer composition utilized for injection molding comprising gas blocking flakes. In analogous art as applied above, An suggests details regarding the polymer composition for injection molding, and in this regard, An teaches the following:
([0075]) teaches that the preparation of the compositions according to the present invention may be carried out by mixing the polymer components with the possibly present reinforcing filler and the other additives according to techniques known in the art. ([0075]) teaches that the elastomeric composition is incorporated into injection molded parts. ([0067]) teaches that the elastomeric composition can comprise at least about 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, or 50 phr of one or more fillers, based on the total weight of the elastomers. Recalling, that the fillers that can improve the thermophysical properties of the elastomeric composition including the modulus, strength, and expansion coefficient. As such, the disposing the gas-blocking flakes into the polymer material is understood to comprise combining the filler/gas-blocking flakes and the polymer material to form a homogenous mixture.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 11, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 11,
Wherein the step of directing the respective flows of the injection molding material into the mold includes selectively operating at least one gating structure of the plurality of gating structures of the mold.
Arai teaches the following:
After a predetermined amount of the layer resin A is injected into the molding cavity, the needle valve 1b of the first injection cylinder unit is closed, and the needle valve 2b of the second injection cylinder unit 2 is opened to inject the layer resin B. As such, the step of directing the flow of the injection molding material into the mold includes selectively operating at least one gating structure of the plurality of gating structures of the mold.
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 11,
Wherein the step of disposing the gas-blocking flakes into the polymer material includes disposing the gas-blocking flakes in a range of from approximately 10 percent to 40 percent by volume of the injection molding material.
Regarding Claim 16, Arai is silent regarding the polymer composition utilized for injection molding. In analogous art as applied above in claim 1, An suggests details regarding the polymer composition for injection molding, and in this regard, An teaches the following:
([0067]) teaches that the elastomeric composition can comprise at least about 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, or 50 phr of one or more fillers, based on the total weight of the elastomers. Recalling, that the fillers that can improve the thermophysical properties of the elastomeric composition including the modulus, strength, and expansion coefficient.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Furthermore, due to the impact of the filler i.e., mica and/or glass has on the composition, the case law regarding for result effective variable may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
C.) Claim(s) 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi Arai (US 4752199 A, hereinafter Arai) in view of An et al. (US 20170210888 A, hereinafter An)
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the aligned configuration of the gas-blocking flakes is characterized by a longitudinal axis of each gas-blocking flake being oriented parallel with an adjacent interior surface of the forming cavity.
Regarding Claim 9, Moss as modified by An teaches the above detailed. Moss as modified by An is silent regarding the or orientation of the longitudinal axis. In analogous art as applied above in claim 1, Lapčík suggests details regarding optimizing the orientation of filler particles during injection molding and in this regard, Lapčík teaches the following:
(Pg. 93, Col. 2, ¶1, lines 1 – 2) teaches that this paper aims to study the effect of planar shape mica and prism shape wollastonite filler particles in HDPE polymer composites. (Pg. 93, Col. 1, ¶1, lines 30 – End) teaches that the effect of the additional mica delamination induced by the injection flow and its orientation within the flow direction, allows for the polymer macromolecules melted matrix to be intercalated in between galleries of mica layers under applied shear conditions. As a result, an increased storage modulus was found reflecting higher stiffness of the DPIM prepared HDPE/mica composite materials. As such, the orientation of mica during injection molding is understood to impact the storage
PNG
media_image1.png
431
114
media_image1.png
Greyscale
modulus and stiffness. Furthermore, (Pg. 93, Col. 2, ¶2, lines 11 – 14) teaches that there was found parallel orientations of the filler particles in the final composite testing articles by SEM analysis. (For the visualization of the flux of the polymer matrix/filler melt in the mold see Appendix A. Supplementary data. Highlighting, as shown in the Appendix A Data, the particles are oriented along the direction of injection molding. (Pg. 96, Col. 2, lines 1 – 10) clarifying that this is melt flow induced, the fillers spatial orientation in the injection molded testing articles, the fillers were oriented in the direction of their lowest hydrodynamic resistance. (Pg. 96, Col. 2, lines 1 – 10) noting similarly, that the steep increase of the HDPE/mica composites was ascribed to the effect of the proper pouring of the polymer macromolecular chains on the surface of the planar mica particles initiating stronger inter particle as well as particle polymer interactions, enhancing the so-
PNG
media_image2.png
159
193
media_image2.png
Greyscale
called confinement effects.Highlighting, in the images provided there is found to be fibers that are oriented in both the vertical direction and horizontal direction of the article formed, and thus are aligned with the vertical and horizontal corresponding portions of the mold. Adding, that the additives aligned in the vertical direction are also understood to be aligned with the gates / nozzles utilized for the injection molding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing injection molded parts that comprises a polymer material of Arai as modified by An. By further modifying and optimizing the composition to include filler particles with augmented orientation and shape, as taught by Lapčík. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement filler particles with directed orientation and a desired shapes provides a means for tailoring the storage modulus and stiffness of the article fabricated, (Pg. 93, Col. 1, ¶1, lines 30 – End). Furthermore, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takashi Arai (US 4840553 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) a metal mold for a multi-layer resin molded article for effecting, in injection-molding a cylindrically-shaped part, sandwich molding in which core layer resin is used for the center of the cylinder portion of the cylindrically-shaped part and skin layer resin is used for the portion around the center of the cylinder portion, a mold member provided with a cavity for molding the cylindrically-shaped part has attached thereto a runner plate provided with a plurality of runners for passing the resins therethrough into the cavity.
Schrewe et al. (US 3801684 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) a sandwich moulding process wherein skin and core materials are sequentially injected into a mould cavity from separate injection barrels through a common sprue, skin material being caused to flow up the core feed channel, towards the core injection barrel while skin material is being injected into the mould cavity.
Garner et al. (US 3873656 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) a process in which a skin material is injected through a sprue channel into a mould cavity followed by a core material, wherein a further quantity of skin and/or core material is injected into the mould cavity through a second sprue channel displaced from the first.
Eunsu JO (US 20220063157 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A injection molding apparatus may mold an injection product that includes a skin layer forming an outer surface by a first material and a core layer surrounded by the skin layer and having an interior formed by a second material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741