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 amended independent claim1 to now recite “a screw rotation drive mechanism for rotating the screw;” and “wherein a drive system of the screw rotation drive mechanism is an electric drive system,”
The applicant summarizes the features/limitations that are critical to the novelty and nonobviousness of independent claim 1 as follows:
An electric drive system to rotate the screw;
A hydraulic apparatus to drive the piston
An electric drive unit to move the movable platen; and
An ejection force drive unit to generate an ejection force by hydraulic drive to eject the molded product
(Applicant arguments/remarks 10/20/2025 p. 5)
Additionally, the applicant argues that the secondary reference, Shizuo (KR 10-2014-0032854 A), which purportedly teaches a hydraulic drive generating an ejection force in the ejection force drive unit, instead discloses a servo motor driven to operate the ejector mechanism (paragraph [0040]). (Applicant arguments/remarks 10/20/2025 p. 8)
Applicant maintains that Shizuo does not provide an electric drive system to rotate the screw, but the servo motor moves the screw back and forth and another servo motor rotates the screw and concludes that Shizuo fails to teach or suggest an injection molding machine that includes an electric drive unit to rotate the screw and, moreover, that a hydraulic apparatus drives the piston (Applicant arguments/remarks 10/20/2025 p. 7)
The examiner counter-argues that Dantlgraber not only initially discloses a hydraulic apparatus configured to drive the piston in an axial direction (Fig. 6 Col. 20 ll. 16-19), but also teaches that a drive system of a screw rotation drive mechanism is an electric drive system (Col.11, ll. 47-49).
As to applicant’s argument that Shizuo does not provide an ejection force drive unit to generate an ejection force by hydraulic drive to eject the molded product, the examiner maintains that the ejector mechanism of Shizuo is operated as a hydraulic drive as it is equipped with a hydraulic cylinder (paragraph [0019]). While it is true that the hydraulic cylinder of the ejector mechanism is supplied with operating oil by a second pump controlled by a servo motor (paragraph [0023]) and that there is an embodiment of the ejector mechanism being completely operated by an electric motor, this is only considered as an alternative to the hydraulic mechanism embodiment (paragraph [0019}. Therefore, the examiner concludes that at least one embodiment of the ejector mechanism is completely hydraulic with a servo motor only having a role of supplying oil to the hydraulic cylinder, as discussed above. This is further borne out by the fact that the second pump is not operating when the electric motor alternative is the ejector drive mechanism, whereas the second pump does operate in the hydraulic embodiment, as discussed above (paragraph [0040] l. 715).
New grounds of rejection are provided by the examiner as necessitated by this amendment of independent claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dantlgraber (US 7,124,581 B2), of record, in view of Shizuo (KR 10-2015-0032854 A) with machine translation.
Regarding Claim 1, Dantlgraber discloses an injection molding machine (ti, abs) comprising:
an injection apparatus configured to perform an injection operation of a material (ti, abs plastic injection moulding machine); and
a mold clamping apparatus configured to mold the material injected from the injection apparatus (Figs. 1-4 Col. 7 ll. 41-42 movable mold clamping plate – 10 move in a straight line with respect to a stationary mold clamping plate – 9),
wherein the injection apparatus includes:
a screw (Fig. 2 Col. 1 ll. 36-38 plasticizing screw Col. 11, 34-35 screw – 140 located within a plasticizing cylinder – 65);
a screw rotation drive mechanism for rotating the screw (Fig. 1 Col. 11 ll. 34-37 screw -140 can be driven in rotation)
a piston connected to the screw (Fig. 6 Col. 20 ll. 14-15 hydraulic piston – 85 is aligned with the plasticizing and injection screw – 140); and
a hydraulic apparatus configured to drive the piston in an axial direction (Fig. 6 Col. 20 ll. 16-19 between said screw and the hydraulic piston – 85, further parts or components are arranged, forming an axially displaceable injection – 66 with the hydraulic piston and the screw, axial bearing – 145) an axially displaceable injection shaft – 66 with the hydraulic piston and the screw),
wherein a drive system of the screw rotation drive mechanism is an electric drive system (Fig. 1 Col. 11 ll. 47-49 the electric motor – 71 can therefore drive the screw in rotation irrespective of its axial position) and
wherein the mold clamping apparatus includes:
a movable platen to which a first mold can be attached (Figs. 1-4 Col. 7 ll. 42-43 movable mold clamping plate – 10);
a fixed platen to which a second mold can be attached (Figs. 1-4 Col. 7 ll. 42-45 movable mold clamping plate – 10 guided on a machine frame can move in a straight line with respect to a stationary mold clamping plate – 9); and
an electric drive unit configured to move the movable platen in a mold closing direction or a mold opening direction with respect to the fixed platen (Fig. 1 Col.3 ll. 54-56 Col. 9 ll. 60-61 electric motor is used not only for closing and locking but also for opening the mold; electric-motor drive – 50 comprises an electric motor – 51).
However, while Dantlgraber discloses that the mold clamping unit further includes an ejector apparatus (Fig. 5 Col. 19 ll. 29-32 ejector cylinder – 125 movable mold clamping plate – 10) configured to eject a molded product made of the molded material – where this is clearly inferred from Fig. 5 (ejector cylinder – 125, movable mold clamping plate – 10, and while Dantlgraber further discloses that this ejector apparatus includes an ejection force drive unit configured to generate an ejection force for ejecting the molded product and which utilizes hydraulic reservoirs (Col. 20 l. 43- Col. 21 l. 3 ejector cylinder – 125 connected fluidically to high pressure hydraulic reservoir – 118 and low pressure hydraulic reservoir – 116),
the ejection force drive unit is actually an electric motor (Figs. 5, 6 Col. 20 ll. 47-63 where the electric motor- 51 drives the magnetic coupling – 45 which directly displaces pressurized liquid through the piston rod – 28 so that pressure medium flows to it from the low pressure hydraulic reservoir – 116).
Shizuo discloses an injection molding device with a control method that operates a screw by means of electric motors and a shape coupling cylinder by means of hydraulic pressure (abs). In at least one embodiment, Shizuo discloses that a mold clamping apparatus with a movable plate is performed through an electric motor whereby the movable platen moves in a mold closing direction or a mold opening direction with respect to the fixed platen (Fig.1 paragraph [0018] l. 255 movement (opening and closing) of the movable plate – 29 is performed by an electric motor through this mechanism).
Moreover, Shizuo further teaches that the mold clamping apparatus includes an ejector apparatus with an ejection force drive unit that generates ejection force by a hydraulic drive (Fig. 1 paragraphs [0019] l. 279 [0040] l. 696 ejector mechanism – 40 equipped with a hydraulic cylinder – 39is attached to the back surface of the movable plate – 29 (opposite the attachment surface of the movable mold -38) hydraulic cylinder – 39 of the ejector mechanism – 40).This ejector mechanism then ejects a molded product after the mold opening process is complete (Fig. 1 paragraph [0040] l. 696 molded product pushed out by the ejector mechanism – 40).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Dantlgraber with the teaching of Shizuo whereby an injection molding machine that includes a hydraulic apparatus to drive a piston, an electric drive unit to move a movable platen with an electric drive system operating a screw rotation drive and ejection force drive unit to generate an ejection force, but by an electric motor,
would have this latter ejection force drive unit generating an ejection force to be instead a hydraulic drive to eject the molded product.
The skilled artisan would have considered this feature advantageous because the hydraulic cylinder of the ejector mechanism can be controlled with high precision by changing it to a four-way switching valve of open control and using a servo valve or other flow control valve with a closed loop controlled direction switching functionality (paragraph [0026] l. 419 [0040] l. 712).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dantlgraber (US 7,124,581 B2), of record, and Shizuo (KR 10-2015-0032854 A) with machine translation as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kikuchi (US 6,595,265 B2), of record.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, the combination of Dantlgraber and Shizuo disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but is silent as to the material being a metal material and/or a magnesium alloy.
Kikuchi discloses a fan product monolithically molded out of a metal (ti abs) through injection molding using a thixomolding method which is a semi-molten metal injection molding method (Col. 2 ll. 7-10) whereby a metal having a low melting point is utilized (Col. 1 62-66) and where a magnesium alloy is a representative metal having this low melting point (Col. 2 ll 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of the combination of Dantlgraber/Shizuo with the teachings of Kikuchi whereby an injection apparatus configured to perform an injection operation of a material with a hydraulic apparatus configured to drive a piston in an axial direction, as in Dantlgraber/Shizuo, would also include using a metal that is a magnesium alloy as the material, as taught by Kikuchi.
A skilled artisan would consider a metal such as a magnesium alloy because this is an easily-recycled-material by a low-cost device using a smaller energy for recycling in consideration of global atmosphere preservation (Col. 5 ll. 10-14) and due to the coagulation of magnesium alloy being rapid it is necessary to increase the injection rate requiring a large capacity hydraulic system for driving a screw (Col. 14 ll. 36-42).
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 WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748