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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7-8 are objected to because they are depending on the cancelled claims 3-4. Appropriate correction is required. For purpose of examination, these claims are treated as depended on claim 1. Clarification and/or correction are needed.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-18 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 discloses that a needle centering means being arranged “… between the spacer and the gate…” – in part c., wherein:
Said needle centering means being arranged between the spacer and the gate and/or
Said needle centering means being designed as a separate element inserted into the front section of the housing opposite to the gate.
It is unclear if the needle centering means is “a separate element”, from what?
The claim is also unclear if there are two elements to the needle centering means: one is arranged between the spacer and the gate and one is a separate element located between the front section of the housing opposite to the gate? If it is an “or” option then the ii. description of the needle centering means seems to contradict with the previous description. How can one needle centering means be arranged in between the spacer and the gate and opposite to the gate at the same time. Clarification and/or correction are needed.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spuller (2020/0114553) in view of Schouenberg (4,378,963) and Vetrano (1,982,128).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Spuller discloses a nozzle 6 for an injection molding apparatus. The nozzle comprises:
a. a housing 7 comprising a sleeve-shaped rear section and a thereto coaxially arranged sleeve-shaped front section surrounding a central passage extending in an axial direction faulting part of a melt channel 9 in which a needle 8 is arranged movable in the axial direction between a retracted open position and an extended closed position in which a gate 4 at a tip of the front section is closed by a front end of the needle in a sealing manner [0035], Fig. 3; wherein
b. a spacer 10 is arranged between the rear section and the front section defining a total length of the housing in the axial direction – Fig. 5; wherein the spacer is preferably annular shaped and acts act as a thermal isolator and/or a fluid seal between the housing and the mold plate preventing escape of melted plastic [0011].
However, Spuller fails to disclose that the spacer is extending between the rear section and the front section defining the housing and a needle centering means as a separate element inserted into the front section of the housing opposite to the gate.
Schouenberg discloses an injection molding apparatus, comprising a spacer and centering bushing 17 extending along and defining a support housing for a nozzle 9/needle valve 26 at one end and a guide busing 27 for guiding/centering the pin 11 at the other end of the needle valve 26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Spuller’s spacer to extending the spacer between the rear section and the front section of the nozzle housing and an additional centering means as taught by Schouenberg in order to provide additional support and guiding to the nozzle. The overall length of the spacer, the location and the number of the spacer/centering means would have been an obvious design choice depending on the length of the needle valve, the operating conditions, the material being used and the size of the nozzle, so when a different nozzle being used, a new corresponding spacer can be changed while providing a full support to the nozzle.
Alternatively, Vetrano discloses an injector for injecting fluid material, comprising in injector core pin 15 aligned within a nozzle pipe 11, wherein the core pin 15 is supported and centered at the front end of the nozzle pipe 11 by radial spacers 17 whereby the core is held centered relative to the nozzle pipe 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Spuller with additional spacers closer to the nozzle tip as taught by Vetrano in order to provide support and centering a core pin within the nozzle pipe/housing.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the spacer 10 comprises at least one of a ring, a bushing, and a washer, [0038].
Regarding claims 5-7, wherein a mold plate 2 – separated from the nozzle 6 and the needles 8 - comprises a pocket 3 in which the nozzle 6 is at least partly arranged, wherein each discharge openings 4 is arranged in a ring-shaped dimple 21. The two dimples 21 are overlapping each other and are thus divided by a ridge 23 between them that is varying in height for centering the needles 8 with the discharge openings 4.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, wherein the multiple discharge openings 4 are part of the mold plate 2 that form the mold cavity 5.
Regarding claim 11, wherein the spacer is selected from different material to prevent thermal expansion of the (heated) nozzle in a radial direction such that the needles are displaced in respect to the (cooled) discharge openings in the mold plate, wherein different material is selected to have a reasonable high E-module and a good thermal isolation quality, such as e.g. titan or ceramic, or other materials depending on the field of application [0011].
Regarding claim 12, wherein the spacer 12 comprises a rear sealing surface and a front sealing surface in a mounted position interacting with the front section and the rear section preventing leakage of melted thermoplastic material from the central passage, [0038].
Regarding claims 16-17, wherein the front section comprises an outer part 25 and a tip element 24, and is interconnected from the inside or from the outside to the outer part – see Fig. 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 5-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Thu-Khanh T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/Thu Khanh T. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743