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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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 1-12 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumazaki (U.S. Patent No. 4383816) in view of Kimura (U.S. Patent No. 6658318).
Regarding claim 1, Kumazaki teaches:
An arrangement with a first clamping unit (Col. 3, lines 15-16; Fig. 3, #30) for a molding machine, comprising:
a first fixed platen (Col. 3, lines 15-24; Fig. 3, #11) and a first movable platen that can be moved relative thereto (Col. 3, lines 15-24; Fig. 3, #13), which are suitable for carrying at least one mold (Col. 3, lines 15-24; Fig. 3, #14),
at least one first clamping force mechanism, which is formed to apply a clamping force to the first movable platen (Col. 3 - Col. 4; Fig. 3, #26),
a control or regulating unit, which is designed to control or regulate the first clamping force mechanism (Col. 4, line 59 – Col. 5, line 8),
wherein arranged next to and/or above the first clamping unit is at least one second clamping unit (Col. 3, lines 15-24; Fig. 3, #31), comprising
a second fixed platen or the first fixed platen (Col. 3, lines 15-24; Fig. 3, #11) and a second movable platen that can be moved relative thereto (Col. 3, lines 15-24; Fig. 3, #13), which are suitable for carrying at least one mold (Col. 3- Col. 4; Fig. 3, #15; Fig. 6, #51),
at least one second clamping force mechanism, which is formed to apply a clamping force to the second movable platen (Col. 3 - Col. 4; Fig. 3, #26), and
wherein the control or regulating unit is designed to control or regulate the at least one second clamping force mechanism (Col. 4, line 59 – Col. 5, line 8).
Kumazaki does not teach:
wherein the first and second clamping force mechanisms are different mechanisms, and
actuating the at least one first clamping force mechanism and the at least one second clamping force mechanism to apply a clamping force synchronously when the first fixed platen, the first movable platen, optionally the second fixed platen and the second movable platen jointly carry at least one mold.
However, Kimura, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the first and second clamping force mechanisms are different mechanisms (Col. 3-4), and
actuating the at least one first clamping force mechanism and the at least one second clamping force mechanism to apply a clamping force synchronously when the first fixed platen, the first movable platen, optionally the second fixed platen and the second movable platen jointly carry at least one mold (Col. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clamping force mechanisms of Kumazaki to incorporate the teachings of Kimura and include two separate clamping force mechanisms that can be operated synchronously. The purpose, as stated by Kimura, being it permits a synchronized operation of a plurality of injection molding devices which associate in producing a composite molding product (Col. 6, lines 38-40).
Regarding claim 2, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Kimura further teaches:
wherein the control or regulating unit is formed to move the first movable platen and the at least one second movable platen synchronously (Col. 2-3).
Regarding claim 3, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on. Kumazaki further teaches:
wherein the at least one second clamping unit is arranged such that the at least one second clamping axis of the at least one second clamping unit is aligned parallel or perpendicular to a first clamping axis of the first clamping unit (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on. Kumazaki further teaches:
wherein the first clamping unit and the at least one second clamping unit have a mechanical movement coupling (Col. 3, line 60 – Col. 4, line 21; Fig. 3, #29).
Regarding claim 5, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on. Kimura further teaches:
wherein the control or regulating unit is formed to control or regulate the first clamping unit and the at least one second clamping unit coupled (Col. 2-3).
Regarding claim 6, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on. Kumazaki further teaches:
wherein between the first clamping unit and the at least one second clamping unit at least one movable separator is arranged, which is arranged outside a first mold region of the first clamping unit and a second mold region of the at least one second clamping unit when the first fixed platen, the first movable platen, the second fixed platen and the second movable platen (10) jointly carry a mold (Col. 2 – Col. 4; Fig. 3, #15).
Regarding claim 7, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on. Kumazaki further teaches:
wherein the first clamping force mechanism and/or the at least one second clamping force mechanism has at least one hydraulic drive, preferably a hydraulic cylinder, and/or an electric drive, preferably a spindle drive (Col. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 8 depends on. Kumazaki further teaches:
wherein the first clamping force mechanism and/or the at least one second clamping force mechanism has at least one tension or pressure rod (Col. 3 – Col. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 8, which claim 9 depends on. Kumazaki further teaches:
wherein the at least one tension rod penetrates the first fixed platen and the first movable platen and/or the at least one second fixed platen and the at least one second movable platen (Col. 3 – Col. 4; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 8, which claim 10 depends on. Kumazaki further teaches:
wherein at least one pulling device is present, which is formed to move the at least one tension rod substantially in the direction of the first clamping axis of the first clamping unit and/or the at least one second clamping axis of the at least one second clamping unit in order to arrange the at least one tension rod outside the first mold region of the first clamping unit and/or outside the at least one second mold region of the at least one second clamping unit (Col. 3 – Col. 4; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 11 depends on. Kumazaki further teaches:
wherein the first fixed platen and the at least one second fixed platen are a single fixed platen, with the result that the first clamping unit and the at least one second clamping unit have a common fixed platen (Col. 3, lines 15-24; Fig. 3, #11).
Regarding claim 12, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 12 depends on. Kumazaki further teaches:
wherein the first clamping unit has at least one fast stroke drive, which is different from the first clamping force mechanism, and/or the at least one second clamping unit has at least one fast stroke drive, which is different from the second clamping force mechanism, for the fast stroke movement of the first movable platen and/or the at least one second movable platen (Col. 3 – Col. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 15 depends on. Kumazaki further teaches:
wherein at least one injection unit is provided (Col. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 16 depends on. Kumazaki further teaches:
wherein the first clamping force mechanism is connected to a first hydraulic line system and the at least one second clamping force mechanism is connected to at least one second hydraulic line system, wherein the first hydraulic line system and the at least one second hydraulic line system are formed couplable to each other (Col. 4 – Col. 5; Fig. 6, #64).
Regarding claim 17, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 17 depends on. Kumazaki further teaches:
wherein at least one control valve, by which the first hydraulic line system and the at least one second hydraulic line system can be coupled, is arranged between the first hydraulic line system and the at least one second hydraulic line system (Col. 4 – Col. 5; Fig. 6, #64).
Regarding claim 18, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 18 depends on. Kumazaki further teaches:
wherein the first hydraulic line system and/or the at least one second hydraulic line system are connected to at least one pump system (Col. 4 – Col. 5; Fig. 6, #64).
Regarding claim 19, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 19 depends on. Kumazaki further teaches:
wherein the first hydraulic line system and/or the at least one second hydraulic line system can be controlled or regulated by at least one valve, in particular proportional valve (Col. 4 – Col. 5; Fig. 6, #64).
Regarding claim 20, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches:
A molding machine with an arrangement according to claim 1, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 21, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches, specifically from Kumazaki:
A method for operating an arrangement with a first clamping unit and at least one second clamping unit for a molding machine, preferably according to claim 1, see the rejection of claim 1 above of Kumazaki in view of Kimura, wherein
the at least one second clamping unit is arranged next to and/or above the first clamping unit (Fig. 3, #30 and #31), and
a first partial clamping force is applied to at least one first movable platen of the first clamping unit by a first clamping force mechanism (Col. 3 - Col. 4; Fig. 3, #26), and
at least one second partial clamping force is applied to at least one second movable platen of the at least one second clamping unit by at least one second clamping force mechanism (Col. 3 - Col. 4; Fig. 3, #26).
Kimura further teaches:
wherein the first and second clamping forces are different mechanisms (Col. 3-4), and
the first partial clamping force and the at least one second partial clamping force are applied synchronously (Col. 2 – Col. 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 modified the clamping forces of Kumazaki to incorporate the teachings of Kimura and include two separate clamping forces that can be applied synchronously. The purpose, as stated by Kimura, being it permits a synchronized operation of a plurality of injection molding devices which associate in producing a composite molding product (Col. 6, lines 38-40).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumazaki (U.S. Patent No. 4383816) in view of Kimura (U.S. Patent No. 6658318), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Siegrist (U.S. Patent No. 5911924).
Regarding claim 1, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 13 is dependent on, but does not teach the first and/or second clamping force mechanisms having a toggle joint, however, Siegrist, in a similar field of endeavor, an injection molding apparatus with a clamping mechanism, teaches:
wherein the first clamping force mechanism and/or the at least one second clamping force mechanism has at least one toggle joint (Col. 1, line 54 – Col. 1, line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clamping force mechanisms of Kumazaki in view of Kimura to incorporate the teachings of Siegrist and include a toggle joint. The purpose, as stated by Siegrist, being the toggle lever (joint) can be considered as a basic concept for the clamping unit (Col. 1, lines 64 – 65).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumazaki (U.S. Patent No. 4383816) in view of Kimura (U.S. Patent No. 6658318), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yeh (US-20210402661).
Regarding claim 14, Kumazaki in view of Kimura teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 14 is dependent on, but does not teach the first and/or second clamping force mechanisms having a locking device, however, Yeh, in a similar field of endeavor, an injection molding apparatus with a clamping mechanism, teaches:
wherein the first clamping force mechanism and/or the at least one second clamping force mechanism has a locking device ([0028] – [0030]; Fig. 1, #103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clamping force mechanisms of Kumazaki in view of Kimura to incorporate the teachings of Yeh and include a locking device. The purpose, as stated by Yeh, being in some embodiments, the locking device is configured to lock the molding device on the platform. In some embodiments, the locking device is configured to facilitate a temporarily engagement of the molding device to the injection station. In some embodiments, the locking device is used to prevent movement of the molding devices during the injection of the fluid or the liquid into the mold cavity ([0028]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748