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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groleau (JP 2017-019275 A, hereinafter Groleau and wherein paragraph citations made below refer to the paragraph numbers of the 20-page machine translation included in the April 10, 2024 correspondence) and in view of Nissan (JP S55-084554 U1, the 14-page scan included in the instant file wrapper dated July 28, 2023), and Nomura et al. (JP 2016-121952 A, hereinafter Nomura, and where citations below refer to the 9-page machine translation dated April 10, 2024 in the file wrapper).
Regarding Claim 1, Groleau teaches in Figure 6A a mold apparatus comprising:
a mold having a cavity 26;
a bearing structure bounded by retainer plate 34 and ejector plate 38;
a sensing module comprising a sensor plate 46, and having two sensors 104, with [0035] disclosing that in this embodiment temperature is measured directly and pressure indirectly, thus defining a:
a temperature sensor having a sensing portion (sensor 104) and an abutting portion (the sensor plate 46), wherein as can be seen in Figure 6A, the sensing portion is located in the mold and corresponds to a position in the cavity, and the abutting portion is located in the bearing structure; and
a pressure sensor disposed in the bearing structure and corresponding to the abutting portion, wherein the abutting portion is adapted to abut against the pressure sensor by a pressure of the position in the cavity (via indirect pressure sensor 42 on the opposite end of the pin of the sensor 104).
In art reasonably pertinent to the problem of how to measure pressure with sensors, Nissan teaches in the Abstract that a pressure sensor has a sensing protrusion/load conversion element (the protrusion most visible in Figure 2) in order to convert a pressure load into an electric signal, and thus it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s filing to include a known pressure sensor element such as Nissan’s sensing protrusion in Groleau, since such an inclusion would be a combination of known prior art elements to achieve the predictable result of pressure sensing and conversion thereof into an electrical signal.
While this combination is silent on the protrusion facing away from the abutting portion as claimed, there are a finite number of predictable possibilities of where to place the protrusion on the sensor, and as the technology of pressure sensing is useful per Nissan, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand it could be useful in different places where pressure sensing in Groleau could be useful, a set of places that comprise a finite and predictable variety set of possibilities, such that it would have thus been obvious to try differing locations for the protrusion, including where it faces away from the abutting portion and is adapted to abut against the bearing structure by abutment of the abutting portion against the pressure sensor.
However, while the previous combination teaches the apparatus as applied above, it is silent on the mold comprising a protection surface covering the abutting portion.
In analogous art pertaining to molding, Nomura teaches in [0004]-[0010] the use of a spacer/protection structure covering an abutting portion to prevent direct contact between an ejector pin and load cell, and raises the potential problem of the spacer wearing over time.
Therefore it would have been obvious to include a spacer/protection structure per Nomura in Groleau to prevent direct contact between an ejector pin and load cell, and to ensure a sufficient hardness to minimize the spacer wearing over time, such that it would have been obvious to make the hardness of the protection structure is greater than 38 HRC, since hardness is generally recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as common sense way to prevent wear, and since it has been held that finding an optimum or workable range requires only ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, with the temperature sensor 104 on the movable pin in Figure 6A as discussed above, it is thus movably disposed in the mold and the bearing structure along a movement axis, and the pressure sensor is located on the movement axis, with the sensing portion and the abutting portion respectively located at two opposite ends of the temperature sensor on the movement axis.
Regarding Claim 10, Groleau as applied to Claim 1 above defines the temperature sensor as an ejector-pin-type temperature sensor, and the bearing structure as an ejector plate structure.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groleau and Nissan as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Takayama et al. (JP 2008-232753 A, with citations made to include machine translation, hereinafter Takayama)
Regarding Claim 2, Groleau teaches the apparatus as applied to Claim 1 above, but is silent on the temperature sensor being an optical fiber temperature sensor.
In analogous art pertaining to molding, Takayama teaches throughout the entire document, including [0001], that an optical fiber temperature sensor is a known sensor for measuring the temperature of resin inside a cavity of a molding as a sensor material with excellent heat resistance per [0010], and thus it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s filing to use a known temperature sensor type element such as Takayama’s optical fiber temperature sensor in Groleau, since such an inclusion would be a substitution of one known prior art element for another to achieve the predictable result of temperature sensing with excellent heat resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant had previously argued that since Nomura suggests modifications such as moving the sensor in case of wear, there would be no reason to avoid wear. The Examiner responded that having to move the sensor in order to avoid wear problems is still an inconvenience that is better avoided altogether, and thus increasing hardness of the protection structure would still be a desirable and obvious modification to make. Furthermore, in order to avoid wear, it would make sense to use a hardness level that does not easily deform (as deformation could lead to wear), thus rendering the specific claimed hardness of 38 HRC obvious as well. In this reply, Applicant does not appear to address any of these points, and merely repeats that Nomura’s adjustable mechanism obviates any other need to address wear problems. Consequently, the Examiner maintains the previous reply’s unrebutted reasoning and thus obviousness.
In response to applicant's argument that the 38 HRC hardness is intended to prevent plastic deformation in the instant application, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN M OCHYLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/RYAN M OCHYLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743