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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A1 (i.e., claim(s) 1-2, 13-14, 16-17, and 20-21) in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant made the election with traverse; however, Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the basis of the traversal and the supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Thus, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicant’s argument that dependent claim 6 reads on elected species A1 is not found persuasive. Dependent claims 6, 15, and 22 recite a secondary plunger, and therefore, they are directed to Species A3. Accordingly, claim(s) 3-4, 6, 15, 18-19, and 22 is/are withdrawn as being drawn to nonelected species A2 and A3. Claim(s) 1-2, 13-14, 16-17, and 20-21 is/are examined herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“811”
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“815” and “839”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract describes apparatus already known in the art (See prior art rejection set forth below). A correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01 (b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a backpressure-prevention device associated with the injection cylinder to prevent pressure developed in the injection cylinder from acting on one of the conduit and plasticizing unit” in claims 1 and 16 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in [0028-0029] and [0032] of Applicant’s published Application.
“a devolatilizing section in communication with the plasticized resin to permit escape of volatile materials from the plasticized resin” in claims 1 and 16 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in [0026] and [0039] of Applicant’s published Application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-2, 13, 16-17, and 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 16, “a plasticizing unit including a flighted screw rotating in a heated containment barrel for plasticizing resin the plasticizing unit in selective fluid communication” should be changed to --a plasticizing unit including a flighted screw rotating in a heated containment barrel for plasticizing resin, the plasticizing unit in selective fluid communication-- to fix the run-on sentence and improve clarity.
In claims 2 and 17, “the backpressure prevention device further comprises” should be changed to --the backpressure prevention device comprises-- because no structure for the backpressure prevention device is previously recited.
In claims 13 and 20, “the devolatilizing section further comprises:” should be changed to --the devolatilizing section comprises:-- because no structure for the devolatilizing section is previously recited.
In claims 13 and 20, “to permit escape of the volatile materials from the resin; and” should be changed to --to permit escape of the volatile materials from the plasticized resin.-- to end the claim with a period and to comport with the language of claim 1.
In claim 16, “a backpressure-prevention device between the plasticizing unit injection cylinder” should be changed to --a backpressure-prevention device between the plasticizing unit and the injection cylinder-- to make the claimed language proper and clear.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13-14, 16-17, and 20-21 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the nozzle configured … and to exert pressure on resin in the mold through reciprocation of the nozzle in the bore” which is indefinite. Since claim 1 introduces “a bore in the mold” and “a central bore” in the nozzle, it is unclear to which of the bores is Applicant referring to in the claimed limitation. Also, the claimed language states a function/result obtained by the nozzle without setting forth well-defined boundaries of the invention. It is unclear how the nozzle is capable of reciprocating in the bore of the mold. According to paragraphs [0031] of Applicant’s published application, the nozzle is incapable of performing the claimed reciprocation function/result by itself. See MPEP §§ 2173.03 and 2173.05 (g). For purposes of examination, the limitation has been examined below as if it read --the nozzle configured … and to exert pressure on resin in the mold through reciprocation of the nozzle in the bore of the mold--.
Claim(s) 2 and 13-14 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “to prevent pressure developed in the injection cylinder from acting on one of the conduit and plasticizing unit” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the conduit” in the claim(s). The limitation has been examined below as if it read --to prevent pressure developed in the injection cylinder from acting on one of a conduit and the plasticizing unit--.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the nozzle configured to exert pressure on resin in the mold through reciprocation of the nozzle in the bore” which is indefinite. Since claim 1 introduces “a bore in the mold” and “a bore” in the nozzle, it is unclear to which of the bores is Applicant referring to in the claimed limitation. Also, the claimed language states a function/result obtained by the nozzle without setting forth well-defined boundaries of the invention. It is unclear how the nozzle is capable of reciprocating in the bore of the mold. According to paragraphs [0031] of Applicant’s published application, the nozzle is incapable of performing the claimed reciprocation function/result by itself. See MPEP §§ 2173.03 and 2173.05 (g). For purposes of examination, the limitation has been examined below as if it read --the nozzle configured to exert pressure on resin in the mold through reciprocation of the nozzle in the bore of the mold--.
Claim(s) 17 and 20-21 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 16 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a conduit” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the conduit of claim 17 is same or different from the conduit of claim 16. The limitation has been examined below as if it read --the conduit--.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a conduit” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the conduit of claim 21 is same or different from the conduit of claim 16. The limitation has been examined below as if it read --the conduit--.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13-14, 16-17, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dray (US 20050013896 – of record) in view of Nakano (JP 2006150634A with English machine translation - attached), Parker (US 5123833), and further in view of Noresson (WO 97/11829A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Dray discloses an injection molding apparatus for injecting resin into a mold (Abstract, claim 13), the apparatus comprising:
an injection cylinder (109) in fluid communication with the mold, wherein movement of a piston (111) within the cylinder injects a selected quantity of resin into the mold (claim 13, P0019-0022, Figs. 3-5);
a plasticizing unit including a flighted screw (103) rotating in a heated containment barrel (101) for plasticizing resin, the plasticizing unit in selective fluid communication with the injection cylinder for supplying the injection cylinder with plasticized resin (claim 13, P0021, Figs. 3-5);
a conduit (113) connecting the plasticizing unit to the injection cylinder to communicate resin from the plasticizing unit to the injection cylinder (P0021, Figs. 3-5);
a nozzle (107) extending from the injection cylinder (109) into a bore (119) in the mold, the nozzle including a central bore in fluid communication with the injection cylinder (claim 13, P0021, Figs. 3-5), the nozzle configured to selectively permit flow of resin into the mold and to exert pressure on resin in the mold through reciprocation of the nozzle in the bore of the mold (P0021-0022, claims 13-14, Figs. 3-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dray fails to disclose a backpressure-prevention device, a screen, or a devolatilizing section.
In the same field of endeavor, injection molding apparatuses comprising a plasticizing unit and an injection cylinder, Nakano discloses the technique of incorporating a backpressure-prevention device (backflow prevention mechanism 11 reads on the claimed backpressure-prevention device as it comprises a check valve 11a and it is capable of performing the claimed functions) in a conduit (7) between the plasticizing unit (1) and the injection cylinder (4) such that the backpressure-prevention device (11) is associated with the injection cylinder (4) to prevent pressure developed in the injection cylinder after being filled with plasticized resin from acting on one of the conduit (7) and plasticizing unit (1) for the benefit(s) of preventing flow of resin from the injection cylinder to the plasticizing unit and/or shortening the molding cycle (pg. 1, pg. 2, pg. 4, Fig. 5b).
PNG
media_image2.png
530
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Dray in view of Nakano by incorporating a backpressure-prevention device in the conduit between the plasticizing unit and the injection cylinder such that the backpressure-prevention device is associated/configured with the injection cylinder to prevent pressure developed in the injection cylinder after being filled with plasticized resin from acting on one of the conduit and plasticizing unit to yield the predictable benefits/results of preventing flow of resin from the injection cylinder to the plasticizing unit and/or shortening the molding cycle as suggested by Nakano.
See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
The combination, as applied above, fails to disclose a screen.
In the same field of endeavor, injection molding apparatuses comprising a plasticizing unit and an injection cylinder, Parker discloses the technique of incorporating a screen (23) between the plasticizing unit (14) and the injection cylinder (40) in order to capture and remove particulate contaminants/impurities in/from the plasticized resin (C3, L41-C4, L28, C5, L41-44, Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of the combination in view of Parker by incorporating a screen between the plasticizing unit and the injection cylinder to yield the predictable benefits/results of capturing and removing particulate contaminants/impurities from the plasticized resin before the plasticized resin is injected as suggested by Parker. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
The combination, as applied above, fails to disclose a devolatilizing section as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, injection molding apparatuses comprising a plasticizing unit and an injection cylinder, Noresson discloses the technique of incorporating a devolatilizing section (14 + segment of the flighted screw 12 having a change in profile extending across 14) in communication with the plasticized resin in the plasticizing unit in order to permit escape of volatile materials (gases and air) from the plasticized resin (pp. 3-4, Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of the combination in view of Noresson by incorporating a devolatilizing section in communication with the plasticized resin in the plasticizing unit to yield the predictable benefit/result of permitting escape of volatile materials from the plasticized resin before the plasticized resin is injected as suggested by Noresson. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Nakano further discloses wherein the backpressure prevention device (11) comprises a check valve (11a) in the conduit (7) to prevent flow of resin from the injection cylinder to the plasticizing unit (pg. 1, pg. 2, pg. 4, Fig. 5b).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Noresson further discloses/suggests wherein the devolatilizing section comprises: at least one segment of the flighted screw configured to permit escape of the volatile materials from the plasticized resin (segment of the flighted screw 12 having a specific change in profile/channel extending across 14 is expected to be configured/shaped to permit/increase escape of the volatile materials from the plasticized resin by increasing exposure/area of the plasticized resin via the arcuate channel in the segment of the flighted screw along/matching the degassing port 14: pp. 3-4, Fig. 1: wherein an arcuate channel in the segment of the flighted screw is disclosed as part of the configuration/profile achieving the claimed result/function: [0044-0045] of Applicant’s publication; See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
PNG
media_image3.png
626
377
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 14 and 21, the combination, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the screen is disposed in the conduit.
However, upon reading the disclosure of Parker, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that shifting the location of the screen would not have modified the operation of apparatus if the screen is provided at a location after the plasticizing unit and before injection cylinder. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have recognized that a screen positioned in the conduit between the plasticizing unit and injection cylinder would provide more space/access for its exchange/cleaning than the screen positioned right after the plasticizing unit.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of the combination by rearranging/disposing the screen in the conduit between the plasticizing unit and injection cylinder to yield the predictable results/benefits of providing more access to it and/or facilitating its exchange/cleaning. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Claim(s) 14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dray in view of Nakano, Parker, and further in view of Noresson as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Craig (US 20120082753).
Regarding claims 14 and 21, the combination, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the screen is disposed in the conduit.
In the same field of endeavor, injection molding apparatuses comprising a plasticizing unit and an injection unit, Craig discloses the technique of disposing a melt filter (112) in a conduit (113) between the plasticizing unit (102) and the injection unit (122) or at any location between the plasticizing unit and the injection unit to yield the predictable results/benefits of removing contaminants/impurities from the plasticized material being transferred from the plasticizing unit to the injection unit and/or increasing the useful life of the melt filter (Abstract, P0016, 0022-0023, 0027-0028, 0050, Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of the combination in view of Craig by rearranging/disposing the screen in the conduit between the plasticizing unit and injection cylinder to yield the predictable results/benefits of removing contaminants/impurities from the plasticized material being transferred from the plasticizing unit to the injection cylinder and/or increasing the useful life of the screen as suggested by Craig. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure.
Uhlig (US 4362496 – of record) discloses a relevant apparatus comprising a backpressure-prevention device (check valve ball 45) in a conduit (41) between a plasticizing unit (21) and an injection cylinder (23) to prevent pressure developed in the injection cylinder from acting on one of the conduit and the plasticizing unit in order to prevent the flow of material from the injection cylinder (23) to the plasticizing unit (Figs. 2-3 and accompanying text).
Takamaya (US 6187229) discloses a relevant apparatus comprising a devolatilizing section in communication with a plasticized resin to permit escape of volatile materials from the plasticized resin (Abstract, C2, L62- C3, L18, Figs. 1-2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743