Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/006,775

A MOLD FOR INJECTION MOLDING

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 25, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, THUKHANH T
Art Unit
1743
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Lego A/S
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
611 granted / 821 resolved
+9.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
847
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.8%
+6.8% vs TC avg
§102
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 821 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/§ 103 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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 1-7, 11-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fairy (2008/0152751) in view of Jessen et al. (2019/0077054). Regarding claims 1, 12-14, Fairy discloses a molding system having: a main body 102, 104, 110 having one side forming a mold cavity 140; and a gate 138 having a first end with an opening arranged for being connected to a sprue or a runner channel or manifold 112 arranged in the injection molding tool 104, 110, and a second end forming a most constricted gate opening into the mold cavity 140, wherein the main body forms at least the second end of the gate 138. However, Fairy fails to disclose that the mold main body made of a plastic material and filler material. Jessen et al. disclose a system for manufacturing an injection mold, wherein the building material comprises one or more of one or more silicone or other rubbers or rubber-like materials, and/or one or more thermoplastic elastomers, and/or one or more thermosetting compounds, and/or one or more polyacetal binders, and/or one or more organic binders, and/or one or more filler materials such as ceramic powder or particles, metallic powder or particles, glass powder or particles, glass beads, or glass fibers, carbon black or carbon powder or particles, nanotubes, and/or re-used or re-cycled plastic and/or resin powder – see claim 41 – in order to provide dimensional stability under elevated temperatures and highest possible wear resistance, [0235]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Fairy with a mold made of plastic material and a ceramic/metal filler as taught by Jessen et al. in order to provide dimensional stability under elevated temperatures and highest possible wear resistance. Regarding claim 2, wherein Fairy further discloses that the main body 110 forms the complete gate 138. Regarding claims 3-8, and 12-14, Fairy further discloses that the gate 138 has a first funnel shaped section arranged upstream from the most constricted gate opening 138, and a second funnel shaped section 229 arranged between the most constricted gate opening 138 and the first funnel shaped section, and a third section forming the most constricted gate opening into the mold cavity, the third section being either cylinder shaped or funnel shaped, and an angle between two opposite sides of the second funnel shaped section is larger than an angle between two corresponding sides of the third funnel shaped section as shown below: [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First funnel shaped section)] [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second funnel shaped section)][AltContent: textbox (Third funnel shaped section)][AltContent: textbox (Constricted gate opening 138)] PNG media_image1.png 384 736 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding the angle between the opposite sides of the funnel shape sections, the specific frustum shape, the actual size and shape of the melt channels, the sprues, the mold plates, the piping and/or the kinds of manifolds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select appropriate size and/or shape or the design the slope of the funnel sections as a matter of design choice, depending on the material being used, the injection conditions so that the material can flow easily to the gate under controlled environment [0013], [0018]. Regarding claims 11-22, Fairy further discloses a pin gate 126 extending between a gate inlet and a gate opening within the nozzle 116, the pin gate forming a tapered, cylindrical channel 256 through a body of the mold 104, 110 and abruptly transitioning to a smooth funnel of multiple sections 124, 250, 258, 260 corresponding with a plural truncated sections of the mold 112, 114, , the gate opening positioned at an end of the funnel 229, the pin gate 126 configured to receive molding material from a runner channel of the injection molding tool at the gate inlet and dispense the molding material at the gate opening 138; and a mold cavity 140 in fluid connection with the gate opening of the pin gate and configured to receive the molding material therefrom, wherein the position of the sleeve 124, the nozzle tip 206 are controlled to distribute molding material such that the flow, velocity and/or pressure of the molding material are balanced [0024]. Claims 8, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairy Fairy (2008/0152751) in view of Jessen et al. (2019/0077054) as applied to claims 1-7, 11-15, and 17-21 above, and further in view of Okano et al. (5,589,202). Regarding claims 8, 16 and 22, Fairy discloses that the mold material is not central to the invention [0011], while Okano et al. discloses that the mold can be made of ceramics, plastics or any of the material which withstands the molding pressure – col. 12, lines 8-10. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fairy by providing a mold made of ceramics or plastic material as taught by Okano et al. because these material have proven to be proper material for making a mold that can withstand the pressure of the molding process. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 7-14, filed July 14, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-8, and 11-22 under Fairy (2008/0152751) and further in view of Okano et al. (5,589,202) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Fairy and Jessen and further in view of Okano et al. as described above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thu-Khanh T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30. 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 on 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. /Thu Khanh T. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 25, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 14, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600684
METHOD FOR PRODUCING A DECORATIVE MINERAL COMPOSITE BODY, DECORATED MINERAL COMPOSITE BODY AND USE OF A MULTI-LAYER FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594735
ROTARY TABLET PRESS WITH REMOVABLE TURRET MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583156
INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576579
A Method of Manufacturing a Door Frame Subassembly for an Electronic Display Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570028
IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE WITH VARIED COMPOSITION AND POROSITY, AND METHOD FOR FORMING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+12.1%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 821 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month