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
In the applicant’s reply of 24 December 2025, the abstract and claims were amended. Based on these amendments, the abstract objection and § 112 rejection included in the previous office action are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections based on Hehl have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the examiner agrees that, in view of the amendments to claims 1 and 15, Hehl fails to disclose that the length of each cut fiber piece is equal to or smaller than a circumference of the screw located immediately below the (second) hole, as now claimed. Therefore, the rejections based on Hehl have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kitayama. See below.
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.
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 1-3, 5-6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0272847 (“Hehl”) (cited in an IDS) in view of US 6,159,408 (“Kitayama”) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Hehl discloses an injection molding machine ([0016], Fig. 1) comprising:
a cylinder (Fig. 2) having a first hole (at the material infeed region 13, Fig. 2, [0016]) which is located upstream (Fig. 2) and through which a resin material is supplied ([0016]) and a second hole (the introduction opening 14, Fig. 2, [0017]) which is located downstream of the first hole (Fig. 2, [0017]) and through which a filler is supplied ([0017]);
a cutting machine (the device 17 and/or the device 18, Figs. 3-4, [0017]-[0019]); and
a screw disposed inside the cylinder (the plasticizing screw 11, Fig. 2, [0016]),
wherein the cutting machine is configured to continuously cut a thread-state fiber to a constant length, and to input cut fiber pieces into the second hole ([0017]-[0021]).
Hehl does not explicitly disclose the length of each cut fiber piece or the circumference of the screw and, accordingly, does not disclose that a length of each cut fiber piece is equal to or smaller than a circumference of the screw located immediately below the second hole (but note Fig. 3).
Kitayama is directed to a similar injection molding machine (abstract, Fig. 1) where the reinforcing fibers have a length in the range of about 3 mm to about 50 mm (Col. 4, Ln. 66 to Col. 5, Ln. 1). In one embodiment, the screw has an outer diameter of 120 mm and a smallest inner diameter of 87 mm (Col. 8, Ln. 65 to Col. 9, Ln. 49, Fig. 1), resulting in an outer circumference of about 377 mm and a smallest inner circumference of about 273 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected fiber lengths and screw circumferences similar to those disclosed in Kitayama since Kitayama indicates that these dimensions are suitable for an injection molding machine like that of Hehl. Additionally, Kitayama states that such dimensions prevent the reinforcing fibers from breaking (Col. 8, Ln. 65 to Col. 9, Ln. 7).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hehl discloses that the fiber is carbon fiber or glass fiber ([0019] of Hehl. Additionally, see MPEP 2115.).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hehl discloses that the cutting machine cuts the thread-state fiber to the constant length after arranging a plurality of the thread-state fibers or stacking the plurality of the thread-state fibers ([0017] of Hehl discloses that there is “at least one cutting or separating device 17” to which “at least one fibre strand 15 can be applied” (emphasis added). In other words, there may be more than one cutting device 17 and/or more than one fibre strand 15 being cut, which would inherently involve “arranging a plurality of the thread-state fibers”, as claimed. Additionally, see MPEP 2114(II).).
Regarding claim 5, see MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 6, see MPEP 2114(II). Additionally, see Fig. 3 of Hehl.
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1.
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 John DeRusso whose telephone number is (571)270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00 AM-6:00 PM ET.
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.
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744