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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 10, and 12-19 are examined.
Claims 11 is currently withdrawn without traverse.
Claims 2-9 are cancelled.
Claims 14-19 are newly added.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims have overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), and 103 rejections; therefore the rejections are withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the previous claim objections; therefore the objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the plurality of split molds" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a first split mold” and “a second split mold”, but does not recite “a plurality of split molds”. It is further unclear if “the plurality of split molds is reciting to “a first split mold” and “a second split mold” as a “plurality” or is separately claiming an additional “plurality of split molds”. Claim 14 recites “a plurality of split molds” in line 2-3 and as depicted in instant FIG. 4 where four second split molds 220’ make up the second split mold 220. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as depending on claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azuma, et al., henceforth Azuma (JP 2010208318 A, an English machine translation was provided in a previous Office Action), in view of Harada (JP 2006142521 A, an English machine translation was provided in a previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, Azuma discloses an injection mold 1 (¶ [0015] – an injection molding die 1) for manufacturing an injection molding product through injection molding (¶ [0015] – for injection molding), the injection mold 1 comprising:
a transfer mold 4 (¶ [0016] – die 4) configured to form a pattern 18a (¶ [0021] – pattern formed by surface 18a by metal plate 18 of 4) on a first surface of the injection-molded product and to be disposed facing the first surface of the injection-molded product (¶ [0021] – pattern corresponds to molded body); and
a rear surface mold 5 (¶ [0022] – die 5) to be disposed facing a second surface of the injection molded product (¶ [0022-0023] – pattern formed by surface 19a corresponds to surface of molded body), the rear surface mold 5 is split (Fig. 1 depicts the ejector pins 16 and the metal plate 19 split up 5), the rear surface mold including:
a first split mold 19 (¶ [0022] – the metal plate 19) including a first rear surface part 19a (¶ [0022]-[0023] – forms surface 19a which a plurality of grooves 20 are formed)
a second split mold 16 (¶ [0020] – four ejector pins 16), wherein the second split mold is disposed at a central portion of the first split mold on a plan view or at an edge of the first split mold on the plan view (Fig. 1 depicts 16 disposed at a central portion and an edge of 19)
PNG
media_image1.png
873
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
633
932
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 and 2 of Azuma
wherein the second surface of the injection-molded product opposes the first surface of the injection-molded product (¶ [0016] – 4 and 5 are disposed so as to face each other; therefore the molded body would have a first and second surface on opposing sides of the body),
a first embossing pattern 20, 21 is disposed on the rear surface part 19a (¶ [0025] – 20 or plurality of grooves 21 formed on 19a),
wherein the first rear surface part 19a define a rear surface part of the rear surface mold 5 (¶ [0022]-[0023] – 19a of 5), which is configured to face the second surface of the injection-molded product (¶ [0022-0023] - corresponds to a surface of molded body),
wherein a second embossing pattern is disposed on a front surface part 18a of the transfer mold (¶ [0021] – surface 18a of 18; ¶ [0049] – multiple grooves formed on the design surface), which is configured to face the first surface of the injection-molded product (¶ [0021] – corresponds to the pattern of the design surface of the molded body)
wherein the first embossing pattern has a roughness Ra of 5.8 µm to 20 µm (¶ [0026] - an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of 0.4 to 25 µm, see overlapping ranges below)
Since the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the second embossing pattern has a roughness of 5.8 µm to 20 µm”, Azuma discloses 18a (second embossing pattern) correspond to the pattern of the design surface in an uneven shape (¶ [0021]). If the surface quality of the molded product is not particularly required, grooves may be formed on the design surface (¶ [0049]).
Furthermore, Azuma further discloses a plurality of grooves 20 are formed on the confluence (joining) surface C (¶ [0033). As a result the contact area between the resin and the mold at the confluence surface becomes larger, thereby improving the cooling rate of the resin, suppresses the protrusion of the weld line, and the thermoplastic resin molded body H having a good appearance (¶ [0033). As the size of the groove increases, the transfer of the thermoplastic resin to the groove is promoted, and making the occurrence of sink marks due to the transfer of the groove more noticeable (¶ [0071), i.e., the occurrence of sink marks is less noticeable and the appearance of the thermoplastic resin is improved by increasing the contact area of the mold to the thermoplastic resin by decreasing the size/width of the grooves.
Azuma discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose a roughness Ra of the second embossing patterns has a roughness Ra of 5.8 µm to 20 µm. As the improved confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line (suppressing sink marks) is a variable can be modified, among others, by adjusting the contact area of the cavity surface (roughness) to thermoplastic resin by adjusting the size/width of the grooves, with said the improved confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line increasing as the contact area of the cavity surface to the thermoplastic resin increases by decreasing the size/width of the grooves, the improved confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed roughness (size/width of the grooves) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the contact area of the mold and the size/width of the grooves in the machine of Azuma to obtain the desired confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the roughness Ra of the first embossing pattern is greater by 5 µm to 15 µm than the roughness Ra of the second embossing pattern”, Azuma discloses 18a (second embossing pattern) correspond to the pattern of the design surface in an uneven shape (¶ [0021]) and 19a (first embossing pattern) comprising grooves 20 corresponds to a non-design surface (¶ [0022]). 20 are form on the non-design surface, but if the surface quality of the molded product is not particularly required, grooves may be formed on the design surface (¶ [0049]); therefore, the non-design surface has a greater surface roughness than the design surface. A plurality of grooves 20 are formed on the confluence (joining) surface C (¶ [0033). As a result the contact area between the resin and the mold at the confluence surface becomes larger, thereby improving the cooling rate of the resin, suppresses the protrusion of the weld line, and the thermoplastic resin molded body H having a good appearance (¶ [0033).
As 19a forms multiple grooves and has greater roughness than 18a when the surface quality of the molded product is not particularly required (¶ [0049]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the roughness of 19a being greater than the roughness of 18a to thereby improve the cooling rate of the resin, suppresses the protrusion of the weld line, and the thermoplastic resin molded body H having a good appearance (¶ [0033), but still achieve the required surface quality of the molded product (¶ [0049]).
Azuma discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose a roughness Ra of the first embossing pattern is greater by 5 µm to 15 µm than a roughness Ra of the second embossing pattern. As the improved confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line (suppressing sink marks) is a variable can be modified, among others, by adjusting the contact area of the cavity surface (roughness) to thermoplastic resin by adjusting the size/width of the grooves, with said the improved confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line increasing as the contact area of the cavity surface to the thermoplastic resin increases by decreasing the size/width of the grooves, the improved confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed roughness (size/width of the grooves) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the contact area of the mold and the size/width of the grooves in the machine of Azuma to obtain the desired confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Azuma does not disclose the second split mold including a second rear surface part, the second rear surface part defines a rear surface part, and the first embossing pattern is disposed on the second rear surface part.
Analogous art Harada discloses a molding die 1 having a transfer surface 11 on its upper surface which has a fine concave-convex pattern, and this transfer surface 11 is transferred with the pattern formed on the stamper 3 (¶ [0028]; Fig. 1).
Harada further discloses as shown in Fig. 17, a rear surface mold (¶ [0053] – stamper 4e) including a first rear surface part and a second rear surface part (¶ [0053] – divided into multiple pieces, stamper pieces 4i to 4m), which defines a rear surface part, and a first embossing pattern is disposed on the first rear surface part and a second rear surface part (¶ [0053] – pattern 3 formed on stamper 4e). The distance between the cavity insert (transfer mold) and the stamper pieces 4i to 4m (rear surface parts) is kept small until reaching a pressure (¶ [0055]). This makes it possible to increase the resin pressure at the moment the molten resin 12 touches the pattern 3 of the stamper pieces 4i to 4m, and thus allows the pattern 3 to be faithfully transferred to the molten resin 12 (¶ [0055]).
Azuma and Harada disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the pattern formed on a stamper divided into stamper pieces in Harada to the grooves on the metal plate and ejector pins in Azuma to make it possible to increase the resin pressure at the moment the thermoplastic resin touches the grooves of the metal plate and ejector pins, and thus allows the grooves to be faithfully transferred to the thermoplastic resin/molded body (¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 12, Azuma discloses the groove 20 form an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of 0.4 to 25 µm (¶ [0026]), which contains the claimed roughness range of from 10 µm to 20 µm.
Since the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
Azuma discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose a roughness Ra of the first and second embossing patterns have a roughness Ra of 10 µm to 20 µm. As the improved confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line (suppressing sink marks) is a variable can be modified, among others, by adjusting the contact area of the cavity surface (roughness) to thermoplastic resin by adjusting the size/width of the grooves, with said the improved confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line increasing as the contact area of the cavity surface to the thermoplastic resin increases by decreasing the size/width of the grooves, the improved confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed roughness (size/width of the grooves) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the contact area of the mold and the size/width of the grooves in the machine of Azuma to obtain the desired confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 13, modified Azuma discloses the injection mold of claim 1.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the roughness Ra of the first embossing pattern is greater by 10 µm to 15 µm than the roughness Ra of the second embossing pattern”, Azuma discloses the non-design surface has a greater surface roughness than the design surface in the analysis of claim 1 above. A plurality of grooves 20 are formed on the confluence (joining) surface C (¶ [0033). As a result the contact area between the resin and the mold at the confluence surface becomes larger, thereby improving the cooling rate of the resin, suppresses the protrusion of the weld line, and the thermoplastic resin molded body H having a good appearance (¶ [0033).
Azuma discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose a roughness Ra of the first embossing pattern is greater by 10 µm to 15 µm than a roughness Ra of the second embossing pattern. As the improved confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line (suppressing sink marks) is a variable can be modified, among others, by adjusting the contact area of the cavity surface (roughness) to thermoplastic resin by adjusting the size/width of the grooves, with said the improved confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line increasing as the contact area of the cavity surface to the thermoplastic resin increases by decreasing the size/width of the grooves, the improved confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed roughness (size/width of the grooves) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the contact area of the mold and the size/width of the grooves in the machine of Azuma to obtain the desired confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 14, modified Azuma discloses the injection mold of claim 1. Azuma further discloses wherein the second split mold is disposed at the edge of the first split mold on the plan view (Fig. 1 depicts 16 disposed at edges of 19), the second split mold includes a plurality of split molds (¶ [0020] – four ejector pins 16), each of the split mold among the plurality of split molds is spaced apart from one another (Fig. 1 depicts 16 are spaced apart).
PNG
media_image3.png
873
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Azuma FIG. 1
Regarding claim 15, modified Azuma discloses the injection mold of claim 14 (see 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above). Azuma further discloses wherein the plurality of split molds includes four split molds (¶ [0020] – four ejector pins 16).
Regarding claim 16, modified Azuma discloses the injection mold of claim 1. Azuma further discloses wherein the first embossing pattern includes: a third embossing pattern that is disposed on the first rear surface part (¶ [0023] – 20 formed near center of cavity surface 19a).
Azuma does not explicitly disclose the first embossing pattern includes: a fourth embossing pattern that is disposed on the second rear surface part, and wherein the third embossing pattern has a roughness that is the same as a roughness of the fourth embossing pattern.
Harada further discloses as shown in Fig. 17, the first embossing pattern (¶ [0053] – stamper 4e, divided into multiple pieces, stamper pieces 4i to 4m) includes a fourth embossing pattern that is disposed on the second rear surface part (¶ [0053] – pattern 3 formed on stamper 4e), and wherein the third embossing pattern has a roughness that is the same as a roughness of the fourth embossing pattern (¶ [0053] – pattern 3 formed on stamper 4e, FIG. 17 depicts the pattern is the same on 2i-4m). The distance between the cavity insert (transfer mold) and the stamper pieces 4i to 4m (rear surface parts) is kept small until reaching a pressure (¶ [0055]). This makes it possible to increase the resin pressure at the moment the molten resin 12 touches the pattern 3 of the stamper pieces 4i to 4m, and thus allows the pattern 3 to be faithfully transferred to the molten resin 12 (¶ [0055]).
Azuma and Harada disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the pattern formed on a stamper divided into stamper pieces in Harada to the grooves on the metal plate and ejector pins in Azuma to make it possible to increase the resin pressure at the moment the thermoplastic resin touches the grooves of the metal plate and ejector pins, and thus allows the grooves to be faithfully transferred to the thermoplastic resin/molded body (¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Azuma discloses the injection mold of claim 1. Azuma further discloses wherein the rear surface mold is configured to support the second surface of the injection-molded product (¶ [0022-0023] – pattern formed by surface 19a corresponds to surface of molded body).
Regarding claim 18, modified Azuma discloses the injection mold of claim 1. Azuma further discloses wherein the rear surface part is configured to form the entire second surface of the injection-molded product (FIG. 6 depicts 20 is formed on the entire surface of 19a, corresponding to surface of molded body).
Regarding claim 19, modified Azuma discloses the injection mold of claim 1. Azuma further discloses wherein the first split mold and the second split mold are disposed at the same level (FIG. 1 depicts the ejector pins 16 and the metal plate 19 split up 5 are on the same level).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Azuma (JP 2010208318 A) in view of Harada (JP 2006142521 A), as applied to claim 1, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Azuma (JP 2010208318 A) in view of Harada (JP 2006142521 A), as applied to claim 1, in view of Fino et al., henceforth Fino (US 2020/0114554 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Azuma discloses the groove 20 can be formed by grinding the cavity surface 19a with sandpaper, by cutting, or floating abrasive processing such as sandblasting (¶ [0025]). Furthermore, the grooves 20 may be formed by electrical discharge machining, electroforming, or the like (¶ [0025]).
Azuma and Harada do not disclose the rear surface part of the rear surface mold is processed by chemical etching to have a roughness on a surface thereof.
However, the limitation “the rear surface part of the rear surface mold is processed by chemical etching to have a roughness on a surface thereof” recites an apparatus formed by a process. Determination of patentability is based on the apparatus itself. The patentability of an apparatus does not depend on its method of production. If the apparatus in the claim is the same as or obvious from an apparatus of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior apparatus was made by a different process. Therefore, as Azuma discloses the metal plate has a cavity surface with a groove or plurality of grooves formed to form a roughness, the groove and plurality of grooves is the same as the claimed roughness on a surface of the rear surface part despite the difference in process as patentability is based on the apparatus itself.
In arguendo the limitation provides patentability, it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that chemical etching can be used to achieve roughness of a mold as disclosed by Fino.
Fino discloses a mold 12 having two forming surfaces 16 and 17 whose shape reproduces in negative the surface 6 and surface 7, respectively (¶ [0030]). The surface 16 is embossed so as to be complementary to the surface 6, in order to obtain the roughness of the surface 6 (¶ [0030]). The roughness of surface 6 can be obtained by treating a mould by means of electrical discharge machining or chemical etching, where chemical etching is more precise than electrical discharge machining (¶ [0037]-[0041]).
Azuma and Fino disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the means of chemical etching in Harada as a substitute to the various processes including electrical discharge machining forming the grooves in modified Azuma to emboss the cavity surface so as to be complementary to the surface of the molded body, in order to obtain the roughness of the surface (¶ [0030]) and provide more precision to obtain the roughness (¶ [0037]-[0041]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims recite allowable subject matter, specifically the embossing patterns formed on the first split mold and second split mold so that no tactile discontinuity may occur on the injection-molded product and so that uniform transfer of the pattern may be achieved, despite the split structure of the rear surface mold.
In response to applicant's argument that embossing patterns formed on the first split mold and second split mold results in no tactile discontinuity, 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).
Harada discloses as shown in Fig. 17, a rear surface mold (¶ [0053] – stamper 4e) including a first rear surface part and a second rear surface part (¶ [0053] – divided into multiple pieces, stamper pieces 4i to 4m), which defines a rear surface part, and a first embossing pattern is disposed on the first rear surface part and a second rear surface part (¶ [0053] – pattern 3 formed on stamper 4e).
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues a certain level of roughness is required to prevent or minimize any sense of irregularity caused by the split regions of the mold and the embossing pattern of the rear surface mold may be configured to have a greater roughness than the embossing pattern of the transfer mold.
Azuma disclose wherein the first embossing pattern has a roughness Ra of 5.8 µm to 20 µm (¶ [0026] - an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of 0.4 to 25 µm, see overlapping ranges below). Since the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
Azuma discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose a roughness Ra of the first embossing pattern is greater by 10 µm to 15 µm than a roughness Ra of the second embossing pattern. As the improved confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line (suppressing sink marks) is a variable can be modified, among others, by adjusting the contact area of the cavity surface (roughness) to thermoplastic resin by adjusting the size/width of the grooves, with said the improved confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line increasing as the contact area of the cavity surface to the thermoplastic resin increases by decreasing the size/width of the grooves, the improved confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed roughness (size/width of the grooves) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the contact area of the mold and the size/width of the grooves in the machine of Azuma to obtain the desired confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Applicant argues the ejector pins in Azuma can hardly be regarded to form the cavity surface for forming the rear surface of the injection-molded product as FIG. 2 depicts the ejector pins 16 configured such that they cannot protrude from the metal plate 19 and FIG. 3 does not depict ejector pins 16 on surface 19a.
Although FIG. 2 may depict the ejector pins 16 are configured such that they cannot protrude from the metal plate 19, the specification does not explicitly state that they cannot protrude from the metal plate 19 and are for removing the thermoplastic resin molded body solidified in the cavity 7 from the mold (¶ [0020]). Furthermore, FIG. 1 was cited in the rejection, which depicts ejector pins 16 as split mold of the metal plate 19 as they go through 19.
PNG
media_image4.png
514
729
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 1
Furthermore, Harada further discloses as shown in Fig. 17, a rear surface mold (¶ [0053] – stamper 4e) including a first rear surface part and a second rear surface part (¶ [0053] – divided into multiple pieces, stamper pieces 4i to 4m).
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Azuma has no reason to provide any embossing pattern on the ejector pins.
Harada discloses a rear surface part, and a first embossing pattern is disposed on the first rear surface part and a second rear surface part (¶ [0053] – pattern 3 formed on stamper 4e).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues the objectives of the present application and Azuma are fundamentally different and the weld-line improvement in Azuma is Ry (maximum surface roughness), which is different from Ra (arithmetical mean roughness).
In response to applicant's argument that weld-line improvement in Azuma is different from arithmetical mean roughness, 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).
Azuma discloses an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of 0.4 to 25 µm (¶ [0026]).
Since the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
Although Ry and Ra are different roughness values, modifying the Ry and width/sizing including depth (¶ [0026] discloses depth, width, and aspect ratio to form the grooves with roughness Ra) of the cavity, among other variables, would affect the Ra. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the roughness of the surface to achieve/optimize the desired weld line appearance and confluence/joining as analyzed in the result effective variable analysis above.
Applicant argues modifying Azuma in adjusting the Ra value in connection with weld-line improvement could lead to results inconsistent with the technical significance.
Azuma discloses an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of 0.4 to 25 µm (¶ [0026]).
Since the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
Azuma disclose roughness applied to a surface, including arithmetic mean roughness and maximum surface roughness, in an injection molding apparatus. Nothing in the prior art teaches that the proposed modification would have resulted in an ‘inoperable’ process or undesirable properties. See MPEP § 2143.01 (V).
Applicant argues the Office Action mischaracterizes the teachings of Azuma, specifically the result effective variable analysis regarding the difference in roughness, and the relationship between the difference and the confluence/joining and appearance of the thermoplastic resin molded body at the weld line in Azuma.
Azuma discloses an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of 0.4 to 25 µm (¶ [0026]).
Since the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
Modifying the Ry and width/sizing including depth (¶ [0026] discloses depth, width, and aspect ratio to form the grooves with roughness Ra) of the cavity, among other variables, would affect the Ra. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the roughness of the surface to achieve/optimize the desired weld line appearance and confluence/joining as analyzed in the result effective variable analysis above.
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 JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached on (571) 270-1487. 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.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754