Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/097,685

VERTICAL INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE, INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR MOLDING MOLDED ARTICLE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jan 17, 2023
Priority
Feb 25, 2022 — JP 2022-027561
Examiner
PAGE, HANA C
Art Unit
1745
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The Japan Steel Works Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allowance Rate
213 granted / 353 resolved
-4.7% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+32.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
400
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
57.9%
+17.9% vs TC avg
§102
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
§112
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 353 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 Amendment Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1, and added new claim 11 on 07/07/2026. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claims. The arguments are persuasive and the rejection previously presented is withdrawn. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “mold conveying device” in claim 4. Based on the specification, “mold conveying device” is interpreted as a carriage [0048]-[0049] and the equivalents thereof. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 1, 3, 4, and 9-11 are 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 1 requires “a plurality of types lower molds” and later recites “when the turntable is rotated, one type of the plurality of types of lower molds is switched to the molding target mold and the other type of the plurality of types of lower molds is switched to the standby target mold”. Claim 1 recites “wherein the standby target mold comprises an upper mold of a second type placed on a lower mold of the second type on the turntable”. There appears to be a lack of antecedent basis for a lower mold of “the second type”. It is unclear if “a lower mold of the second type” is a lower mold of “the other type of the plurality of types of lower molds” or another type. It is unclear how a “second type” is a type for both lower and upper mold as the claim does not define pairs of mold of the same types. It is unclear which type is referenced with “the other type of the plurality of types of lower molds” when there are a plurality of types of lower molds and, therefore, a plurality of other types of lower molds.. In claim 11, there appears to be a lack of antecedent basis for “the second type of the standby target mold”. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1, 3, 4, and 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Yashuhiro, Yeh, Kunimatsu, and Inaba, individually or in combination, do not teach or fairly suggest the combination of limitations of claim 1, including an upper mold and lower mold of a second type, wherein the standby target mold comprises the upper mold of a second type placed on the lower mold of the second type on the turntable, such that heat supplied to the lower mold of the second type is conducted to the upper mold of the second type while the molding target mold is being injected with the injection material, and wherein the upper mold of the second type is only heated by heat conducted from the lower mold of the second type. 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 HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30. 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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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. HANA C. PAGE Examiner Art Unit 1745 /MICHAEL A TOLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 3 earlier events
Jul 11, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Sep 25, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jun 24, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 27, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 07, 2026
Response Filed
Sep 24, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12728567
MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR SEALING GASKET, AND MOLD
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12698390
CONVEYOR BELT
3y 8m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12686582
TOOLING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR APPLYING MATERIAL TO A PRE-FORMED INSERT
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12673479
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FORMING GLASS LAMINATES COMPRISING PLIES WITH OFFSET EDGES
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12661842
METHOD, SYSTEM, AND BLOW MOLDING MACHINE FOR BLOW MOLDING A CONTAINER
3y 3m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+32.8%)
3y 1m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 353 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month