DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that the newly added amendment is not taught by the Holzchuh, but the examiner does not rely on the previously stated reference for this teaching in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-12, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara (US 2021/0060841) and Dimmler (AT 510725).
As to claim 1, Sugahara teaches a drive unit for driving at least one component of a molding machine [Abstract], comprising: a first support (24 or 134); a spindle (82) with one end mounted rotatably in or on the first support [0028-0030, Fig 1], the spindle protruding from one side of the first support with respect to an axial direction of the spindle; a drive (74, 78) for rotating the spindle [0028-0030, Fig 1]; a second support (86) [0028]; a nut (84) arranged non-rotatably in or on the second support and movable together with the second support along the spindle by rotating the spindle [0028-0030, Fig 1]; at least one rod(88) which is arranged on the second support and is connectable to the at least one component to be driven of the molding machine or formable as part of the at least one component as it ejects the molded part [0028-0030, Fig 1]; wherein the spindle extends from a first end to a second end in the axial direction of the spindle, and the first end of the spindle is connected to the drive at a position within the covered space such that the spindle is completely arranged inside the space in each movement position of the second support and the nut, and the second support and the nut are arranged along the spindle inside the oil-tight space in each movement position of the second support and the nut [0042, Fig 5] as it would have been obvious to cover these parts within a singular covered space in order to provide soundproofing or protect the operator [0042, Fig 5].
While Sugahara teaches a cover, it does not explicitly state an oil-tight seal which is arranged on the one side of the first support from which the spindle protrudes, so that an oil-tight space is defined between the oil-tight seal and the one side of the first support
Dimmler teaches an injection molding machine where the area of the drive and spindle is covered by a cover and seal that form a hermetically sealed space on a side of the first support [0019, 0022-0024, Fig 1-8]; this system was known to prevent contamination in a simple and compact manner that did not require an expensive complete cover of the entire machine[0012]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Sugahara and had the space be delimited by oil tight seals, as suggested by Dimmler, in order to prevent contamination without requiring large full system covering.
As to claim 2, Sugahara teaches the first support is formed as a plate (24 or 134) [Fig 1, 5].
As to claim 3, Sugahara teaches the second support is formed as a yoke (86) [Fig 1].
As to claim 7, the combination of Sugahara and Dimmler teach the drive is located completely in the oil-tight space as explained above.
As to claim 9, the combination of Sugahara and Dimmler teaches a linear guide (90) is provided inside the oil-tight space for the second support (86) [0028-0030, Fig 1].
As to claim 10, Sugahara teaches a molding machine which includes the drive unit according to claim 1 [Fig 1, Abstract].
As to claim 11, Sugahara teaches the first support is formed by an end plate (134) or a platen (24) [0020-0022] of the molding machine [0040, 0042].
As to claim 12, Sugahara also teaches an embodiment wherein the at least one rod is connected to crosshead of a toggle clamp mechanism (52b) of the molding machine [Fig 1, 0023].
As to claim 15, Sugahara teaches the first support (24) is penetrated by the at least one rod (88) [Fig 1].
As to claim 18, Sugahara teaches the molding machine is an injection-molding machine [Fig 1, Abstract].
Claim 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara (US 2021/0060841) and Dimmler (AT 510725), as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 9-12, 15, 18 above, and in further view of Senga (US 2021/0053265).
As to claim 5, Sugahara and Dimmler teach the system is covered by an oil tight seal as explained above teaches at least one rod (88) has a round cross section, penetrates the first support (24) [Fig 1] and is sealed by an oil-tight rod seal.
Senga teaches an injection molding machine with an oil-tight rod seal (42) around the rod to prevent leakage of lubricant [Abstract, 0041-0043, 0045]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Dimmler and had the rod be equipped with an oil-tight rod seal, as suggested by Senga, in order to prevent leakage of lubricant.
As to claim 6, Sugahara and Dimmler teach the rod is sealed by an oil-tight cover as explained above.
Additionally, Senga teaches an injection molding machine with an oil-tight rod seal which is a radial seal (42) around the rod to prevent leakage of lubricant [Abstract, 0041-0043, 0045]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Dimmler and had the rod be equipped with an oil-tight radial rod seal, as suggested by Senga, in order to prevent leakage of lubricant.
Claim 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara (US 2021/0060841) and Dimmler (AT 510725), as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 9-12, 15, 18 above, and in further view of Takeuchi (US 2014/0227381).
As to claims 4 and 16, Sugahara does not explicitly state an oil pan is arranged in the oil-tight space, and the spindle/ drive is at least partly located in the oil pan.
Takeuchi teaches an injection molding machine [Abstract] wherein the covered space for the spindle/drive is a reservoir space for lubricating oil [Abstract, 0048, 0051-0060, Fig 2, 3, 5] as this allows for automatic adjustment of the flow/discharge rate oil to maintain lubrication [0076]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Sugahara and utilized an oil pan in the covered area such that the spindle and drive are at least partially within the oil pan in the enclosed space, as suggested by Takeuchi, in order to allows for automatic adjustment of the flow/discharge rate oil to maintain lubrication.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
