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 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.
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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2019/0061243) in view of Kobayashi (US 2020/0307091) and further in view of Kilim et al. (US 6,287,491, hereinafter Kilim).
Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses a plasticizing device (see discharge unit 110a of [0346] and Fig. 41) comprising a rotor (see screw 40i of [0348]-[0349]; Fig. 41) which has a groove forming surface (see groove forming surface 480 of [0348]) provided with a groove (see scroll groove 420 of Fig. 42), and a side surface of which is provided with a supply port (supply portion 44 of [0158]) communicated with the groove;
a barrel (screw case 31i of [0348], Fig. 42) which has an opposed surface to the groove forming surface (facing portion 50 of [0140] – [0144] discloses that the structure of the barrel faces the grooves) in a direction in which the rotational axis extends (Id. – the forming surface and the groove forming surface face one another), and which is provided with a communication hole (injection port 61i of [0349]; Fig. 41) from which a material plasticized outflows (article worked upon and manner of operation / intended use);
a heater (see heater 58 of [0349]) configured to heat the material supplied to the groove via the supply port (see Fig. 41 – the placement of the heater is such that it heats the apparatus including the plasticized material); and
a housing (Fig. 41 shows a housing which contains the supply path bore 22), wherein
the housing is provided with a first supply path and a second supply path configured to supply the material to the supply port ([0353] discloses that there may be a plurality of material inlet ports 44 to add / receive material between the flat screw 401 and the screw facing portion 50i – see also Fig. 42 - each of the ports necessarily has a supply path associated therewith).
In the embodiment of Fig. 41, Saito teaches a first material inlet port 44 ([0353]) with a communication path 22 (interpreted broadly and reasonably as a first supply path bore) formed in the housing, however, the reference fails to disclose wherein there is a second supply path bore formed in the housing configured to supply the material to the supply port.
Similar to Saito, Kobayashi discloses a plasticizing apparatus and three-dimensional modeling apparatus wherein two materials are contained in separate containers 25 and 20 and fed through a first supply port 26 and second supply port 21 (Fig. 1 and [0022]-[0024]). This allows for composite materials when combining different kind of materials to be ejected into a nozzle to be plasticized at once ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have added a second supply tank with it’s respective second supply path bore, as taught by Kobayashi, into the plasticizing device of Saito such that there is a first supply path bore and a second supply path bore configured to supply the material to the supply port of Saito. One would have been motivated to do so because this allows for the formation of composite objects utilizing different components, thus expanding on the industrial applicability of Saito’s apparatus. Having both material supplies being fed to the same supply port of Saito also allows for the added advantage of plasticization of both materials all at once (see [0004] of Kobayashi).
It’s noted that Kobayashi discloses two screws for receiving respectively each of the first and second supply path bores. However, the proposed obviousness is modifying Saito which only has a single screw. Since Kobayashi discloses the advantage of using different materials at once to form composite materials, and allowing simultaneous plasticization of the different materials, there is a predictability with a reasonable expectation of success to have added a second supply path to the single screw of Saito.
In particular, such an idea is taught in the art of plastics moulding. Killim discloses a molding process which has a screw plasticizer 90 in which a first feed hopper 91 and a second feed hopper 92 are positioned to feed two different materials into the single screw plasticizer (col. 5, 30-44 and Fig. 9). Killim discloses different configurations which has two supply paths each merging into a single supply port 32 (Fig. 3) or each of the supply paths are fed into different portions of the screw plasticizer (Fig. 9). Further, Killim recognizes that as an alternative to a single screw, the two different materials can be fed into a twin-screw plasticizer (Fig. 10).
Therefore, given Killim’s teaching, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have added the second supply path bore of Kobayashi into Saito such that both the first and second supply path bores are fed into the same supply port on the screw. One would have been motivated to do so because Killim recognizes that it is known to have two materials fed into a single screw plasticizer for moulding plastic, thus establishing predictability with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the combination Saito/Kobayashi/Killim discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises a first material reservoir communicated with the first supply path and a second material reservoir communicated with the second supply path (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination Saito/Kobayashi/Killim discloses (citations to Saito) wherein a first material is retained in the first material reservoir (see [0042]), a second material is retained in the second material reservoir (Id.), and the first material and the second material are different from each other (see [0024] – the control unit 90 manufactures the 3D shaped article by switching between two different types of materials in the first and second ejection sections, respectively).
Regarding claim 5, the combination Saito/Kobayashi/Killim (citations to Saito) discloses wherein when defining an end portion at the supply port side (interpreted broadly and reasonably in accordance with the 112(b) rejection above as the side downstream of the flow path of the respective supply paths) of each of the first supply path and the second supply path as one end, another end in the first supply path and another end in the second supply path are indirectly coupled to each other (interpreted as indirectly coupled to each other – Examiner has interpreted that the two hoppers of the combination Saito / Tsunoya are open to air and therefore fluidically or indirectly coupled to one another such as to meet the claimed, recited subject matter).
Regarding claim 6, the combination Saito/Kobayashi/Killim (citations to Saito) discloses wherein at least either one of the first supply path and the second supply path is provided with an adjuster configured to control a supply amount of the material (the butterfly valve 72d of [0249] meets the BRI of an adjuster).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2019/0061243) in view of Kobayashi (US 2020/0307091), further in view of Kilim et al. (US 6,287,491, hereinafter Kilim) and further in view of Sterman (US 2015/0321418).
Regarding claim 4, the combination Saito/Kobayashi/Killim fails to disclose wherein a minimum cross-sectional area of the first supply path and a minimum cross-sectional area of the second supply path are different from each other. However Kobayashi discloses that having multiple materials allows for the formation of composite materials.
Sterman discloses a heated (see heating coils 405 of [0065]; Fig. 4) extruder (see extruded material from nozzle 118 of [0065]; Fig. 4 – see additionally [0016] and Figs. 7-14) wherein increases in cross-sectional area alter the amount of material laid / down mixed into the apparatus per unit time ([0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the altered cross-sectional area consideration / teaching of the extruder of Sterman to the plasticizing device of Saito/Kobayashi/Killim to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so would have allowed for the alteration in the mixing ratios of the two materials in the separate hoppers of the combination, thereby allowing for making composite materials with varying amount of respective materials in order to manipulate and achieve a desired final property. KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation. Furthermore, the apparatuses of Sterman and Saito/Kobayashi/Killim are in the same field of endeavor of plastics extrusion apparatuses / products and their combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2019/0061243) in view of Kobayashi (US 2020/0307091), further in view of Kilim et al. (US 6,287,491, hereinafter Kilim) and further in view of Kim (US 2004/0080065).
Regarding claim 7, the combination Saito/Kobayashi/Killim discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises a controller (see control section 300 of Saito [0154]) configured to control the adjuster ([0276]), however, the combination Saito / Sato fails to disclose the particular function of wherein the controller is configured to control the adjuster based on a position of the rotor in a rotational period thereof.
Kim discloses a plasticizing device (see Fig. 1, apparatus 10) wherein a blowing agent (see title, abs) is introduced to a polymeric mixture ([0026]) wherein the controller (see controller 31 of [0044]) is configured to open the outlet valve in response to a signal from the controller in response to the onset of the plasticization period of the molding cycle (i.e. based on the axis position of the screw or time after onset of screw rotation – see [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the controller function of controlling the valve / adjuster in relation to the period of rotation of the extruder screw as in Kim in the plasticizing device / apparatus of Saito/Kobayashi/Killim to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so had the benefit that it allowed for the molding processes to not require the direct measurement of the polymeric material pressure ([0044]). KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S Saito (US 2019/0061243) in view of Kobayashi (US 2020/0307091), further in view of Kilim et al. (US 6,287,491, hereinafter Kilim) and further in view of Sasagawa (US 2020/0101661).
Regarding claim 8, the combination Saito/Kobayashi/Killim discloses a nozzle section (see nozzle 61 of Fig. 1 of Saito) configured to emit the material plasticized by the plasticizing device.
The combination Saito/Kobayashi/Killim fails to disclose a fixation part configured to fix a molding tool which receives the material.
Sasagawa discloses a plasticizing device (10A of [0053] & [0116]) wherein a fixation part (interpreted under the BRI standard because, while “part” is a generic nonce term, the language that follows the configured to language is not interpreted as sufficiently functional to require invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) – see mold clamping device 230 of [0120] for opening and closing the movable mold 231 and the fixed mold 232) and driving portion (see mold driving portion 241 of [0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the fixation part / mold clamping device and driving portion of Sasagawa to the plasticizing device of Saito to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so was an exercise in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results – KSR Rationale A. The predictable result being the capability to open and close the molding tool.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art discloses an injection molding device according to claim 8 with a cap member that is arranged between the stationary mold and the nozzle section such that the cap member has a core portion located inside and a shell portion on a surface wherein the core portion has a plurality of voids and is higher in void ratio than the shell portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 7/16/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made (see above).
Conclusion
Citation of relevant, pertinent prior art:
Satoh (US 2015/0141611) teaches an apparatus for production of mixed polymer with additives (see title, abs, apparatus 100a of [0039] and Fig. 3A) wherein the apparatus has multiple hoppers (see any one of multiple tanks 1, 3, 5, 7, 11 of [0040] and Fig. 3A) and further comprises a first supply path and a second supply path (see first path 9a+13b and second path 9e+13c) configured to supply the material to the supply part (see extrusion cap 15of [0074] and Fig. 3A).
Tsunoya (US 2022/0203443) discloses a plasticizing device (see plasticizing section 30 of [0026]) wherein multiple hoppers (see hopper 20a and 20b, Id.) store powder and transport powders via each of two separate supply paths (see ejection section 10 and second ejection section 10b, Id.).
Jilken (US 2018/0073747) discloses a composite storage tank module (see Fig. 15 and [0099]) wherein multiple tanks have different inlet sizes in comparison to one another. This is taken to be interpreted as having different widths / cross-sectional areas and, thus, meets the claimed minimum cross-sectional areas.
Hou (US 2020/0131352) discloses a plasticizing device (see mixing and extrusion apparatus / twin-screw extruder 7 of Fig. 1; [0036]) wherein there are two hoppers (see first feeding hopper 1, and second feeding hopper 2 of [0036]; Fig 1), wherein the two hoppers are different minimum cross-sectional areas of their supply paths (see Fig. 1; while the drawings are not interpreted as to scale, the first feeding hopper 1 and the second feeding hopper 2 clearly are different sizes, including heights and widths of their supply paths into the extruder / plasticizing device).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAO SI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5343. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached on 571-272-2450. 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.
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights