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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-7, 9-12 in the reply filed on 4/23/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8, 13-14, 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/23/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current example. Applicant argues that the term yoke is a common term in mechanical engineering and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not find the claim to be indefinite. However, the examiner is cognizant that yoke is commonly used term in mechanical engineering and even noted as much in the initial action, providing the example of a scotch yoke. What the examiner remains unclear on is what structural limitations claim 3 requires and adds to claim 1. Indeed, features that applicant provides ie “bridge like structure” do not appear to be present in the instant invention. Hence, the examiner has maintained the 112 rejection of claim 3. Applicant argues that the spindle, nut and 2nd support are not within the oil tight space, but applicant points to nut (9) and neglects nut (14) which would meet the criteria of the claim. Furthermore, applicant argues that the spindle of Holzschuh does not protrude from the first support, but spindle emerges (column of 11, 19) from the first support (5) which the same configuration depicted in the instant invention [Fig 1]. Applicant argues that the seal isn’t “on” the face of the first support, but being place “on” does not mean without intervening structures and the seals are clearly placed such that they are supported by (5).
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.
Claims 3 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.
As to claim 3, unclear exactly what is required by the term “yoke” in claim 3. A “scotch yoke” is a mechanism within mechanical engineering wherein rotational motion is converted into linear motion, but the 2nd support depicted and described in the specification does not have these features as a scotch yoke directs the linear motion in a plane perpendicular to that depicted in the instant invention. A yoke also refers to a structure in animal husbandry wherein it is an arched structure with loops that fits the heads of 2 animals. As neither structure appears to be depicted by the 2nd support structure, it is unclear what are the minimal features the term “yoke” requires.
For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner assumes that what applicant intends by “yoke” is that the 2nd support has an annulus/channel through which the spindle/drive goes through.
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 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzschuh (DE 19524314A) in view of Sugiura (US 2021/0016469).
As to claim 1, Holzschuh teaches a drive unit for driving at least one component of a molding machine, comprising: a first support (5) [0016], a spindle (10) with one end mounted rotatably in or on the first support and protruding from the first support on one side [0022], a drive for rotating the spindle a second support a nut (14) arranged non-rotatably in or on the second support (14/15) and movable together with the second support along the spindle by rotating the spindle [0022-0024], an oil-tight seal (unmarked seals under 5) which is arranged on the one side of the first support from which the spindle protrudes, so that an an oil-tight space is defined between the oil-tight seal and the one side of the first support and the spindle, 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 [Fig 1].
Holzschuh does not explicitly state at least one rod 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,
Sugiura teaches a molding apparatus [Abstract] wherein at least one rod which is arranged on the second support (SM) and is connectable to the at least one component to be driven (22) of the molding machine or formable as part of the at least one component [0038, Fig 1] as this configuration provided safety with lesser timing delay [0063]. 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 Holzschuh, as suggested by Sugiura, and had a rod which is arranged on the second support (SM) and is connectable to the at least one component to be driven, as suggested by Suhihara, in order to provide safety without a time delay.
As to claims 2 and 15, Holzschuh teaches the first support is formed in the form of a plate (5) and is preferably penetrated by the at least one rod (3) [Fig 1].
As to claim 3, Holzschuh teaches the second support is formed in the form of a yoke [Fig 1].
As to claim 4, Holzschuh teaches an oil pan (the unmarked ribbed cross section structure outside the motor and 22) is arranged in the oil-tight space, in which the spindle is at least partly located [Fig 1].
As to claim 6, Holzschuh teaches a spindle is sealed to the first support by an oil-tight radial shaft sealing ring or by an oil-tight cover [Fig 1].
As to claim 7 and 16, Holzschuh teaches the drive (8) is located in the oil-tight space and is preferably at least partly arranged in an oil pan (the unmarked ribbed cross section structure outside the motor 13 and 22) of the oil-tight space [Fig 1].
As to claims 10 and 18, Holzschuh teaches A molding machine, injection-molding machine or transfer-molding machine, with the drive unit according to claim 1 [Abstract, Fig 1].
As to claim 11, Holzschuh teaches he molding machine according to claim 10, wherein the first support (5) is formed an end plate or a platen of the molding machine [Fig 1].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzschuh (DE 19524314A) in view of Sugiura (US 2021/0016469), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11 above, and in further view of Senga (US 2021/0053265).
As to claim 5, the at least one rod has a round cross section, penetrates the first support [Fig 1] but does not explicitly state that it 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 Holzschuh and had the rod be equipped with an oil-tight rod seal, as suggested by Senga, in order to prevent leakage of lubricant.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzschuh (DE 19524314A) in view of Sugiura (US 2021/0016469), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11 above, and in further view of Riegler (AT 521266).
As to claim 9, Holzschuh does not explicitly state a linear guide within the oil tight space.
Gunther teaches a closing unit for a molding machine [Abstract] wherein guides (linear guides) lock the bars into place [Fig 10, 11, Page 2 and 3]. 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 Holzschuh and used linear guides in the oil space, as suggested by Gunther, in order to lock the bars into place.
The examiner has assumed the term linear guide refers to locking members sometimes referred to as guides that hold rods/tiebars in place and the term linear guide was a result of translation. As this item is entirely absent from the drawings, it is difficult to determine what applicant intends.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzschuh (DE 19524314A) in view of Sugiura (US 2021/0016469), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11 above, and in further view of Senga II (US 2020/0108536).
As to claim 12, Holzschuh teaches a toggle clamp mechanism (6,7) but does not state the at least one rod is connected to a crosshead of a toggle clamp mechanism of the molding machine.
Senga teaches a molding machine [Abstract] wherein the rods (6) are connected to a toggle mechanism crosshead (13, 16) that provides support to the tie bars without causing deviations [0015-0016, 0006, 0009-0011, Fig 1]. 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 Holzschuh and had the rod be connected to the toggle mechanism crosshead, as suggested by Senga II, in order to support the tie bars without causing deviations.
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 on 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