DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the claims filed 19 February 2026. Claims 1 and 6-14 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 11 are independent claims. Claims 1 and 6-14 are amended.
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 Remarks
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 7-8) that the cited references do not teach the newly amended claims which specify a container that includes a plurality of storage partitions for molded articles. Examiner agrees. Accordingly, new references have been added to the rejection, as further detailed below.
The foregoing applies to all independent claims and their dependent claims.
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 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop (US 2004/0112087 A1) hereinafter known as Bishop in view of Godfrey (US 2003/0023337 A1) hereinafter known as Godfrey in view of Geiss (US 2008/0078827 A1) hereinafter known as Geiss.
Regarding independent claim 1, Bishop teaches:
a physical storage container including a plurality of storage areas partitioned to store ... articles, and a plurality of readable/writable storage media respectively associated with the plurality of storage areas, the physical storage container being configured to receive and hold the ... articles such that one of the ... articles is stored in each of the plurality of storage areas; (Bishop: Figs. 2A, 4A, and 5 ¶[0039]-¶[0040]; Bishop teaches a container with separate partitions for articles and a macro-tag that is incorporated into encasement 444, i.e. each of the partitions.)
...
...
...
Bishop does not explicitly teach but Godfrey teaches:
a control device including a memory and a processor configured to write first information in the memory before molding of ... articles by an ... machine is ended; (Godfrey: Figs. 3 and 4 and ¶[0053], ¶[0088], ¶[0093], and ¶[0097]; Godfrey teaches an electronic management system that contains a processor and a memory that provides the data/time stamp which is written into the tag’s chip before moving onto the first operation.)
a writer configured to write the first information and the second information in the readable/writable storage media after the molding of the ... articles is ended; and (Godfrey: Figs. 3 and 4 and ¶[0093]; Godfrey teaches writing the date/time stamp before the process using 360 and writing that the process has been successfully completed using 362.)
transporter configured to transport the physical storage container with the ... articles and the readable/writable storage media in which the first information and the second information are written. (Godfrey: Fig. 4; Godfrey teaches a conveyor belt to transport the article to the next process.)
Bishop and Godfrey are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since they are directed to manufacturing process which uses transponder for tracking. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a manufacturing process which utilizes a tray with multiple section for each article and tracking each article via a transponder as taught in Bishop with transmitting information to the tag before the operation begins and after and convey the article to the next process taught in Godfrey. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bishop to include teachings of Godfrey because the combination would allow making sure the process is complete, as suggested by Godfrey: ¶[0094].
Bishop in view of Godfrey does not explicitly teach but Geiss teaches an injection molding process and manufacturing molded articles. (Geiss: Fig. 1 and ¶[0032]; Geiss teaches an injection molding system for producing molded parts. Figs. 2-3 and ¶[0038], ¶[0040], and ¶[0044] further teach loading the parts into a container.)
Geiss is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to injection molding multiple articles. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a manufacturing process which utilizes a tray with multiple section for each article and tracking each article via a transponder which further allows transmitting information to the tag before the operation begins and after and convey the article to the next process taught in Bishop in view of Godfrey with an the articles manufactured via a injection molding process as taught in Geiss. Moreover, Geiss also teaches utilizing a container to store multiple molded parts. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bishop and Godfrey to include teachings of Geiss because the combination would allow utilizing a container in an injection molding process for transportation, as suggested by Geiss: ¶[0038].
Regarding claim 6, Bishop in view of Godfrey in view of Geiss further teaches the molded article production system according to claim 1.
Godfrey further teaches:
wherein the first information includes at least one of molding conditions, information necessary for identifying each of the molded articles, or data regarding peripheral units, and the second information includes at least one of actual data acquired during the molding of the molded articles or an inspection result as to whether each of the molded articles is defective. (Godfrey: Figs. 3 and 4 and ¶[0093]; Godfrey teaches writing the date/time stamp before the process using 360, which teaches the first information; and writing that the process has been successfully completed using 362, which teaches the second information.)
Regarding claim 7, Bishop in view of Godfrey in view of Geiss further teaches the molded article production system according to claim 1.
Godfrey further teaches:
further comprising: an inspection device configured to generate a determination criterion based on the first information and the second information to inspect whether each of the molded articles is defective. (Godfrey: ¶[0091]-¶[0094]; Godfrey teaches validating the process and if the system is not satisfied that all of the operations have been successfully carried out, then rejecting. The rejection of the object is interpreted as defective.)
Regarding claims 8-13, these claims recite a molded article production system that performs the function of the molded article production system of claims 1, 6, and 7; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding 14, Bishop in view of Godfrey in view of Geiss further teaches the molded article production system according to claim 12.
Godfrey further teaches:
further comprising: a first reader, wherein in a case where the first information is the information for identifying each of the molded articles, the first reader reads the information for identifying each of the molded articles, and the second writer writes at least one of the actual data acquired or the inspection result of each of the molded articles corresponding to the information read by the first reader. (Godfrey: ¶[0097]; Godfrey teaches writing the date/time stamp and later validating the information. Further, ¶[0091]-¶[0094] teach validating the process and if the system is not satisfied that all of the operations have been successfully carried out, then rejecting. The rejection of the object is interpreted as defective.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights