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
The arguments filed 5/8/2026 are persuasive, however after further search and consideration, a new reference, Metzler, has been cited which teaches the amended claim limitations.
Applicant argues the previously cited references do not describe the measuring step being a process of forming a final resin mixture injection product. While Examiner agrees that Kim and Clarke do not teach the amended limitations, Metzler is cited which describes opening a gas valve at the claimed times. Kim does describe that the measuring process is a mixing process which generates the final resin mixture, see Kim [0029] but Kim does not describe the valve opening, being kept open, or closing in relation to when the final resin mixture is generated specifically. Metzler describes a metering process which includes mixing a polymer component with a gas and then adding an additional polymer component and mixing that until completion. Metzler describes opening a gas valve prior to the final mixing step and keeping it open as claimed in claim 4 as well as closing it after the metering step is completed as claimed in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2004/0080065) modified by Metzler (US 2024/0335984.)
Regarding claim 1, Kim meets the claimed, An injection molding machine for foam molding, comprising: a heating cylinder having a gas injection port; (Kim [0028] describes an extruder 12 having a heated barrel 36 with a blowing agent port 24) a screw which is drivable in the heating cylinder; (Kim [0028] describes a movable screw 34) a gas supply device configured to supply a gas to the gas injection port, the gas supply device comprising a gas cylinder; (Kim [0026] describes a gas source 22 or pressure tank 83) a primary gas pipe coupled to the gas cylinder (Kim [0026] describes conduit 26, see a portion of the conduit 26 after the source 22 but before the regulator 81 on Figure 1) a pressure reducing valve coupled to the primary gas pipe; (Kim [0026] describes pressuring reducing regulator 81) a secondary gas pipe coupled to the pressure reducing valve and to which the gas is supplied from the primary gas pipe with a pressure reduced by the pressure reducing valve; (Kim Figure 1 shows another portion of conduit 26 after the pressure regulator 81) and a valve mechanism provided in a valve mechanism provided in the secondary gas pipe; (Kim [0029] describes an outlet valve 30 which is opened to provide gas to the barrel 36) and a control device configured to control the valve mechanism to: open the valve in a measuring step that comprises generating a predetermined amount of a final resin mixture injection product; (Kim [0029] describes opening the valve 30 at the start of plasticization in which the final mixture of the gas and the polymeric material is formed, [0031] describes the plasticization continues until the desired shot is formed.)
The embodiment in Kim [0045] does not describe, close the valve when a specified delay time elapses however, the embodiments in Kim [0047]-[0048] meets the claimed, close the valve when a specified delay time elapses Kim [0047]-[0048] describes closing the valve after a specified time period or after the completion of the measuring of the gas to ensure that the proper dose has been delivered.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the embodiment of Kim discussing opening the valve with the embodiment discussing closing the valve after a time period in order to ensure that the proper dose is added, see Kim [0047]-[0048].
Kim does not specify that the valve should be closed after the completion of the measuring step. Analogous in the field of foam molding, Metzler also describes an injection molding process which involves mixing together plastic and gas in a mixing chamber and meets the claimed, close the valve after the completion of the measuring step (Metzler [0082]-[0083] describe the valve should be closed after the metering step is completed.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the apparatus of Kim which closes the valve after a time delay with the molding apparatus of Metzler which closes the valve after completion of the metering step in order to prevent the plastic mixture from entering the valve device or accumulating excessive gas, see Metzler [0082].
Regarding claim 2, Kim meets the claimed, The injection molding machine for foam molding according to claim 1, wherein the valve mechanism comprises an on-off valve or an injection valve (Kim [0066] describes the valve 30 is a valve that permits flow in one position and prevents flow in another position such as a solenoid valve, what is described in [0066] is an on-off valve.)
Regarding claim 4, Kim meets the claimed, An injection molding machine for foam molding, comprising: a heating cylinder having a gas injection port; (Kim [0028] describes an extruder 12 having a heated barrel 36 with a blowing agent port 24) a screw which is drivable in the heating cylinder; (Kim [0028] describes a movable screw 34) a gas supply device configured to supply a gas to the gas injection port, the gas supply device comprising a valve mechanism in a gas flow path; (Kim [0029] describes an outlet valve 30 which is opened to provide gas to the barrel 36) and a control device configured to control the valve mechanism to: close the valve mechanism at least once in a molding cycle; (Kim [0029] describes the outlet valve is also closed) wherein the control device is configured to open the valve mechanism (Kim [0029] describes the outlet valve 30 is opened and closed by the control system.)
Kim describes a controller opening and closing a valve but does not describe keeping the valve open during the measuring step when the final mixture is generated or opening prior to the start of the measuring step and does not meet the claimed, keep the valve mechanism open at least in a measuring step that comprises driving the screw to begin a process of melting resin and generating a predetermined amount of final resin mixture injection product in the heating cylinder or open the valve mechanism earlier than start of the measuring step by a specified preceding time
Analogous in the field of foam molding, Metzler also describes an injection molding process which involves mixing together plastic and gas in a mixing chamber and meets the claimed, keep the valve mechanism open at least in a measuring step that comprises driving the screw to begin a process of melting resin and generating a predetermined amount of final resin mixture injection product in the heating cylinder,. (Metzler [0024]-[0026] describes that the valve device is open during a metering process in which gas and plastic material, [0083] describe the stirring mechanism 30 rotates during metering to mix the material) open the valve mechanism earlier than start of the measuring step by a specified preceding time (Metzler [0081]-[0082] describes the injected gas 4 is injected into the mixing region with the first component 2 prior to the stirring mechanism beginning its rotation. This time gap between the injection of the gas and the beginning of the final mixing step allows for microbubbles to build before the second component 3 is added and the mixing of the final product begins.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the injection molding machine of Kim and with the molding machine of Metzler which is configured to open the valve prior to the final mixing step and keep the valve open during a metering step in which the plastic and gas are mixed in order to add gas to the plastic and create microbubbles which then form foam cells, see Metzler [0081]-[0082].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kim modified by Metzler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang (KR20120061141A, see English translation provided.)
Regarding claim 5, Kim does not explicitly describe if the valve is open or shut during injection and does not meet the claimed, The injection molding machine for foam molding according to claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to open the valve mechanism at a timing of an injecting step.
Analogous in the field of foam molding, Kang also discloses a molding apparatus with a valve that injects a blowing agent and meets the claimed, The injection molding machine for foam molding according to claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to open the valve mechanism at a timing of an injecting step (Kang [0029]-[0031] describes opening a valve to allow the foaming agent to mix with the molten resin material as it is injected into the mold.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the apparatus of Kim with the apparatus of Kang which opens the foaming agent control valve during injection in order to create a part of uniform quality, see Kang [0032].
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 VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights