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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 09/24/2025 responsive to the Office Action filed 03/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 17 have been amended. Claims 8 and 11 were previously canceled. Claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 12-22 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1 and 17 have been amended to address the informality, thus the objection of Claims 1 and 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment, filed 09/24/2025 in pages 9-11, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 17 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that “Kang is silent on the volume of any component that collects gases and teaches away from a system that does not affect the pressure in a cavity. The only indication of volume of a component that collects gases in comparison to the mold cavity is FIG, 1 (reproduced below), which illustrates a relatively small collection component (3) as compared to the mold cavity (shown in dashed lines of the mold (1)). Additionally, the use of the term "syringe" would be commonly considered to be referring to a relatively small component by one of ordinary skill in the art. Kang can only be applied for what it teaches. Therefore, Kang does not disclose "a movable piston to vary the volume of the collection cylinder so that the volume of the collection cylinder is substantially larger than the volume of the polymer component formed by the mold cavity."” (page 10)
These arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
Firstly, the limitation “the volume of the collection cylinder is substantially larger than the volume of the polymer component formed by the mold cavity" fails to comply with the written description requirement. (see the claim rejection under 112(a) below).
Secondly, Kang teaches that a method for analyzing gas generated during injection includes connecting a syringe to a gas vent of a plastic injection mold; and measuring a volume of gas discharged from the gas vent during injection using a syringe (pg 3 li 123-127). Thus, Kang teaches the syringe having a volume enough to collect gas discharged from the gas vent during injection. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the volume of syringe in order to collect gas discharged from the gas vent during injection.
Applicant further argues that “Kang describes the use of a syringe in cooperation with a pressure gauge to measure pressure and volume… Kang at page 4, line 217 - page 5, line 230. When a pressure gauge is used, the very operation of the pressure gauge affects the pressure upstream of the pressure gauge, which is the case in Kang, and will affect the pressure in the mold cavity. Thus, Kang teaches away from independent claims 1 and 17.” (page 11)
These arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
Kang teaches that the purpose of the present invention is to provide a method capable of measuring the components and amounts of gases generated inside a mold during an actual injection process (pg 2 li 79-81), and in order to achieve the above object, a pressure gauge or syringe is connected to the gas vent to analyze the pressure and volume of gas coming out of the gas vent (pg 2 li 89-90). Kang further teaches that in [Example 3], “the pressure due to gas generated during injection was analyzed for two types of ABS resin. After connecting the pressure gauge to the gas vent at the end of the mold, injection was performed and the pressure of the gas coming out of the gas vent of the mold during injection was measured, and the results are shown in Fig. 6. You can see that ABS 5 has more gas.” (pg 5 li 229-234). Namely, the pressure gauge shows the pressure of the gas coming out of the gas vent of the mold during injection, thus the measured pressure does not show the pressure in the mold cavity but shows the amount gas coming out of the gas vent of the mold during injection. Rather since the gas generated in the mold during injection came out of the gas vent, the pressure of the mold would be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 17 recite the limitation “the volume of the collection cylinder is substantially larger than the volume of the polymer component formed by the mold cavity” in lines 18-20 of claim 1 and in lines 19-21. With respect to “the volume of the collection cylinder”, the specification discloses that:
“A gas collection system can be arranged so that the volume of the collection vessel(s) used to capture outcoming gases can be varied to accommodate various sizes of mold cavities. It will be understood that if a mold cavity is larger, it is likely that a larger volume of outcoming gases will need to be collected. Therefore, being able to vary the size of the collection vessel(s) provides for a gas collection system that can accommodate multiple sizes of mold cavities.”, Pa [0069]; and
“Secondly, the pistons (230, 240) can be adjusted to independently vary the volume within each collection cylinder (210, 220). In one example, for a relatively small plaque mold, the valve 270 can be set to open the fluid path to only one collection cylinder 210 and the respective piston 230 can be lowered to make the volume of the collection cylinder 210 relatively small to match the mold cavity within the plaque mold 100. If the plaque mold 100 is relatively large, the valve 270 can be set to open the fluid path to both collection cylinders (210, 220) and the respective pistons (230, 240) can be raised to make the volume of the collection cylinders (210, 220) relatively large to match the mold cavity within the plaque mold 100.”, Pa [0070].
Namely, the specification discloses that the volume of the collection cylinders can be varied by moving the piston depending on the volume of the mold cavity within the plaque mold to match the mold cavity within the plaque mold to collect a volume of outcoming gases therefrom, but does not disclose that “the volume of the collection cylinder is substantially larger than the volume of the polymer component formed by the mold cavity”. Therefore, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5, 9, 10, 14, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black et al. (US 4,424,015) in view of Kang et al. (KR101238783B1-Machine Translation) and Shao et al. (CN216309590U-Machine Translation) (All of record).
With respect to claim 1, Black teaches a mold assembly for forming polymer components (“apparatus for injection molding articles from a thermoplastic or similar material”), the mold assembly comprising:
a plurality of interchangeable molds (“a plurality of injection molds 46”, co 5 li 29; “Interchangeable cavities with different size and shape characteristics are provided in the injection molds”, co 3 li 9-11), wherein each of the plurality of molds can be selectively used to form a polymer component (“Interchangeable cavities with different size and shape characteristics are provided in the injection molds, and associated with each mold is a resettable indicator designating the particular type of cavity presently installed in that mold.”, co 3 li 9-14),
each of the interchangeable molds (“A plurality of injection molds 46”) includes: a first part of a mold cavity; and a second part of the mold cavity, wherein the first part of the mold cavity and the second part of the mold cavity are joined to form the mold cavity (“each injection mold 46 comprises an upper mold part 47 and a lower mold part 48.”, co 5 li 39-41; “A mold cavity 54 is defined by a pair of cavity plates 56 and 57 disposed in recesses 58 and 59 in the facing surfaces 49 and 51 of the upper and lower mold parts 47 and 48, respectively.”, co 5 li 56-59);
further wherein, each of the plurality of interchangeable molds is independently assembled with a molding machine (“the nozzle 106 of an injection molding machine is positioned at location A”, co 7 li 17-18 and Figs. 1 and 5) and not assembled with any of the other molds (“A plurality of injection molds 46, here twelve, are fixedly mounted on the table 23 at spaced intervals about its periphery. Preferably, as shown in FIG. 1, a single injection mold 46 is mounted on each table sector 37.”, co 5 li 29-33; Namely, each of the plurality of injection molds 46 is not directly assembled with any of the other molds).
Black does not explicitly teach that the apparatus for injection molding articles is in a plaque shape, however, since Black does not limit the dimensions of the apparatus, one would have found it obvious to modify the Black’s apparatus in a plaque shape since it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Black does not explicitly teach a venting system arranged to provide a path for gases not incorporated into the polymer component during formation to exit the mold cavity; and a collection system to collect and store gases not incorporated into the polymer component during formation, wherein the collection system includes: a collection cylinder; a hose connecting the venting system to the collection system; a movable piston to vary the volume of the collection cylinder so that the volume of the collection cylinder is substantially larger than the volume of the polymer component formed by the mold cavity and the collection cylinder does not affect pressure in the mold cavity; and a one way valve that allows gases to enter the collection cylinder and prevents gases from exiting the collection cylinder.
In the same field of endeavor, a device connection configuration for capturing and analyzing gas generated during injection, Kang teaches that the analysis device comprises a mold (1), a gas vent (2), and a syringe (3) (pg 3 li 145-148 and Fig. 1), and Fig. 8 shows a hose to connect the syringe to the vent of the mold. Kang further teaches that a method for analyzing gas generated during injection includes connecting a syringe to a gas vent of a plastic injection mold; and measuring a volume of gas discharged from the gas vent during injection using a syringe, and the analysis results can be used to develop a prescription for a resin with low gas generation during injection, optimize injection conditions such as plasticization conditions, injection temperature, and injection speed that can minimize gas generation, and optimize mold structure (pg 3 li 140-143).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Black with the teachings of Kang and provide the gas vent, the syringe (which implies a movable piston therein), and the hose with Black’s mold in order to measure a volume of gas discharged from the gas vent during injection using the syringe and use the analysis results to develop a prescription for a resin with low gas generation during injection, optimize injection conditions such as plasticization conditions, injection temperature, and injection speed that can minimize gas generation, and optimize mold structure.
Kang teaches that a method for analyzing gas generated during injection includes connecting a syringe to a gas vent of a plastic injection mold; and measuring a volume of gas discharged from the gas vent during injection using a syringe (pg 3 li 123-127). Thus, Kang teaches the syringe having a volume enough to collect gas discharged from the gas vent during injection. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the volume of syringe in order to collect gas discharged from the gas vent during injection.
Kang teaches that the purpose of the present invention is to provide a method capable of measuring the components and amounts of gases generated inside a mold during an actual injection process (pg 2 li 79-81), and in order to achieve the above object, a pressure gauge or syringe is connected to the gas vent to analyze the pressure and volume of gas coming out of the gas vent (pg 2 li 89-90). Thus, since the gas generated in the mold during injection came out of the gas vent, the pressure of the mold would be maintained.
Kang is silent to a one way valve.
Shao relates to the technical field of atmosphere detection equipment, in particular to a sealed collection device for atmosphere detection (Abstract). Shao teaches that the air intake control assembly 8 includes a one-way valve 11, which is horizontally fixedly mounted on the connecting end of the air intake pipe 4 and the gas collection chamber 3, and when the air pump 2 introduces gas into the gas collection chamber 3 through the air inlet pipe 4, the oneway valve 11 can ensure that the gas enters the gas collection chamber 3 normally, when the air pump 2 stops guiding gas, the one-way valve 11 can prevent the gas from flowing back from the gas collection chamber 3 into the air inlet pipe 4, thereby achieving a sealing effect at the air inlet end of the gas collection chamber 3 (Pa [0053] and Fig. 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Black in view of Kang with the teachings of Shao and provide the air intake control assembly including the one-way valve at the air inlet end of the syringe in order to prevent the gas from flowing back from the syringe into the hose, thereby achieving a sealing effect at the air inlet end of the syringe.
With respect to claim 2, Black as applied to claim 1 above teaches that the interchangeable plaque molds with different size and shape characteristics are provided in the injection molds and the control unit adjusts the parameters of the injection operation to correspond to those characteristics (co 3 li 9-11 and 17-19), and at least two injection nozzles are provided for injecting the same or differing moldable materials (co 3 li 22-24). Therefore, one would have found it obvious to modify the size of each mold cavity for the purpose of forming a desired product. Furthermore, it is noted that the limitation “form…solid polymer component, thermoplastic foam component…” is an intended use since the apparatus of Black is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
With respect to claims 3-5, it is noted that the claimed limitation is an intended use since the apparatus of the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
With respect to claim 9, it is noted that the claimed limitation is an intended use since the apparatus of the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
With respect to claim 10, one would have found it obvious to provide multiple collection cylinders, each including a movable piston; and multiple one way valves with multiple molds, respectively, in order to measure a volume of gas discharged from the molds, respectively.
With respect to claim 14, Kang as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the plurality of interchangeable plaque molds each including at least one sensor (“a mold equipped with a pressure gauge and a pressure sensor”, pg 4 li 217 and Fig. 8), wherein the at least one sensor is arranged to measure the environmental parameters during the forming of the polymer component (“a mold equipped with a pressure gauge and a pressure sensor”, pg 4 li 217 and Fig. 8; “measuring the pressure of gas discharged through the gas vent during injection using the pressure gauge.”, pg 3 li 121-122). It is noted that the limitation “to measure the environmental parameters at periodic intervals” is an intended use since the apparatus of the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
With respect to claim 21, it is noted that the claimed limitation is an intended use since the apparatus of the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
With respect to claim 22, Shao as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the collection system further comprises: tubing connected at one end to the hose and connected on the opposite end to the collection cylinder (Fig. 5); and a valve (“a first solenoid valve 12”) positioned at the connection of the hose and tubing arranged to be selectively opened to allow gases to flow from the hose to the tubing and selectively closed to prevent gases from following from the hose to the tubing (“When collecting gas, the controller 7 controls the first solenoid valve 12 to open, and the air intake pipe 4 is turned on, so that the gas can flow into the one-way valve 11 and then be introduced into the gas collection chamber 3 for collection. After stopping the collection, the first solenoid valve 12 is closed to further seal the air intake pipe 4”, Pa [0054]).
Claims 6, 7, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black et al. (US 4,424,015) in view of Kang et al. (KR101238783B1-Machine Translation) and Shao et al. (CN216309590U-Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Hutchinson et al. (US 7,303,387) (All of record).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, the combination as applied to claim 1 above is silent to a first water circulation system; and a second water circulation system independent of the first water circulation system, wherein the first and second water circulation systems can be independently controlled such that the formed polymer component comprises varying mechanical properties across different sections of the polymer component.
In the same field of endeavor, injection mold, Hutchinson teaches that the injection mold comprises a plurality of fluid channels proximate to the cavity surface and a valve proximate to the cavity surface for mold temperature control (co 1 li 65-67 and co 2 li 29-41), the cavity section 404 has several channels 302 through which a fluid, preferably a chilled gas or liquid/gas mixture, is circulated (col 53 li 53-55), the neck finish mold 402 comprises a plurality of temperature control elements 403 in the form of channels in which a fluid circulates (co 54 li 24-26), the fluid circulation in channels 403, 302 are preferably separate and independent (co 54 li 34-35), and to produce preforms with a crystalline neck finish, the fluid in the channels 402 can be warmer than the fluid in the portions of the mold used to form non-crystalline portions of the preform, and to produce preforms with amorphous neck finishes and body portions, all of the channels can contain relatively cool fluid (co 54 li 49-54). Hutchinson further teaches that water can also be employed to control the temperature of molding apparatus (co 29 li 24-25).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination with the teachings of Hutchinson and provide separate and independent control of the water circulation with different channels in order to form the product comprising varying crystallinities across different portions of the product.
With respect to claim 13, the combination as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that each collection cylinder includes a temperature sensor to measure the temperature of gases in the collection cylinder.
In the same field of endeavor, injection mold, Hutchinson teaches that the injection mold comprises a plurality of fluid channels proximate to the cavity surface and a valve proximate to the cavity surface for mold temperature control (co 1 li 65-67 and co 2 li 29-41), and water can also be employed to control the temperature of molding apparatus (co 29 li 24-25). Hutchinson further teaches that the sensor is positioned near the molding surface of the mold apparatus for accurately measuring the temperature of the molding surfaces (co 38 li 42-45) and a plurality of sensors can be positioned throughout the mold is measured the temperature of the mold apparatus 122 at various locations (co 38 li 55-57). Hutchinson further teaches that additionally, one or more check valves, pressure sensors, flow regulators, fluid lines, temperature sensors, detectors, and the like can be added to the temperature control systems as desired (co 42 li 34-37).
Even though Hutchinson does not explicitly teach a temperature sensor with each collection cylinder, one would have found it obvious to select the optimum location for positioning the temperature sensor by routine experimentations and provide the temperature sensor in order to control the temperature of molding, since it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claims 15 and 16, the combination as applied to claim 14 above is silent to a plurality of sensors distributed throughout the plaque mold.
In the same field of endeavor, injection mold, Hutchinson teaches that the injection mold comprises a plurality of fluid channels proximate to the cavity surface and a valve proximate to the cavity surface for mold temperature control (co 1 li 65-67 and co 2 li 29-41), one or more temperature sensors are positioned somewhat proximate to the mold surface to accurately measure the temperature of the mold, and a controller, in communication with the temperature sensor, configured to selectively control the operation of a valve (e.g., a pressure reducing element) in response to a signal from the temperature sensor (co 3 li 37-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination with the teachings of Hutchinson and provide a plurality of fluid channels, a valve, one or more temperature sensors proximate to the cavity surface with each of Black’s molds and make the control unit in communication with the temperature sensors in order to control the mold temperature.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black et al. (US 4,424,015) in view of Kang et al. (KR101238783B1-Machine Translation) and Shao et al. (CN216309590U-Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao (CN113715253A-Machine Translation) (All of record).
With respect to claim 12, the combination as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that each collection cylinder includes a pressure sensor to measure the internal pressure of the collection cylinder.
In the same field of endeavor, injection mold, Liao teaches that the air pressure sensor is arranged on the end face of the push rod located in the gas collecting chamber (Pa [0009]) to monitor the completion of the exhaust work in real time, preventing the exhaust process from causing unnecessary influence on the efficiency of the injection molding process (Pa [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination with the teachings of Liao and provide a pressure sensor in each collection cylinder in order to monitor the completion of the exhaust work in real time.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black et al. (US 4,424,015) in view of Hutchinson et al. (US 7,303,387), Kang et al. (KR101238783B1-Machine Translation) and Shao et al. (CN216309590U-Machine Translation) (All of record).
With respect to claim 17, Black teaches a mold assembly for forming polymer components (“apparatus for injection molding articles from a thermoplastic or similar material”), the mold assembly comprising:
a plurality of interchangeable molds (“a plurality of injection molds 46”, co 5 li 29; “Interchangeable cavities with different size and shape characteristics are provided in the injection molds”, co 3 li 9-11), wherein each of the interchangeable molds (“A plurality of injection molds 46”) includes: a first part of a mold cavity; and a second part of the mold cavity, wherein the first part of the mold cavity and the second part of the mold cavity are joined to form the mold cavity (“each injection mold 46 comprises an upper mold part 47 and a lower mold part 48.”, co 5 li 39-41; “A mold cavity 54 is defined by a pair of cavity plates 56 and 57 disposed in recesses 58 and 59 in the facing surfaces 49 and 51 of the upper and lower mold parts 47 and 48, respectively.”, co 5 li 56-59);
further wherein, each of the plurality of interchangeable molds is independently assembled with a molding machine (“the nozzle 106 of an injection molding machine is positioned at location A”, co 7 li 17-18 and Figs. 1 and 5) and not assembled with any of the other molds (“A plurality of injection molds 46, here twelve, are fixedly mounted on the table 23 at spaced intervals about its periphery. Preferably, as shown in FIG. 1, a single injection mold 46 is mounted on each table sector 37.”, co 5 li 29-33; Namely, each of the plurality of injection molds 46 is not directly assembled with any of the other molds),
wherein a first mold is selectively used to form one or more polymer components (“Interchangeable cavities with different size and shape characteristics are provided in the injection molds, and associated with each mold is a resettable indicator designating the particular type of cavity presently installed in that mold.”, co 3 li 9-14; “plural mold cavities are provided in at least one of the molds.”, co 3 li 20-21).
It is noted that the limitation “investigating behavior of a polymer during the molding process” in the preamble is and intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81 (preamble is not a limitation where claim is directed to a product and the preamble merely recites a property inherent in an old product defined by the remainder of the claim). MPEP 2111.02.
Black does not explicitly teach that the apparatus for injection molding articles is in a plaque shape, however, since Black does not limit the dimensions of the apparatus, one would have found it obvious to modify the Black’s apparatus in a plaque shape since it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Black further teaches that a sensor unit responsive to the indicators provides a control unit with an indication of the characteristics of the cavity in each mold when it is aligned with the injection nozzle, and the control unit adjusts the parameters of the injection operation to correspond to those characteristics (co 3 li 14-19) and the sensor unit 141 has a plurality of conventional sensor elements 143A-143C (co 8 li 30-33) to detect the presence of the pin 144 and energize the wire 147 connecting it to the control unit 148 (co 13 li 8-11), but does not explicitly teach a plurality of sensors positioned within each of the plurality of interchangeable plaque molds, wherein the plurality of sensors includes a sensor positioned in the first plaque mold; a venting system arranged to provide a path for gases not incorporated into the polymer component during formation to exit the mold cavity; and a collection system to collect and store gases not incorporated into the polymer component during formation, wherein the collection system includes: a collection cylinder; a hose connecting the venting system to the collection system; a movable piston to vary the volume of the collection cylinder so that the volume of the collection cylinder is substantially larger than the volume of the polymer component formed by the mold cavity and the collection cylinder does not affect pressure in the cavity; and a one way valve that allows gases to enter the collection cylinder and prevents gases from exiting the collection cylinder.
In the same field of endeavor, injection mold, Hutchinson teaches that the injection mold comprises a plurality of fluid channels proximate to the cavity surface and a valve proximate to the cavity surface for mold temperature control (co 1 li 65-67 and co 2 li 29-41), one or more temperature sensors are positioned somewhat proximate to the mold surface to accurately measure the temperature of the mold, and a controller, in communication with the temperature sensor, configured to selectively control the operation of a valve (e.g., a pressure reducing element) in response to a signal from the temperature sensor (co 3 li 37-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Black with the teachings of Hutchinson and provide a plurality of fluid channels, a valve, temperature sensors proximate to the cavity surface with each of Black’s molds and make the control unit in communication with the temperature sensors in order to control the mold temperature.
In the same field of endeavor, a device connection configuration for capturing and analyzing gas generated during injection, Kang teaches that the analysis device comprises a mold (1), a gas vent (2), and a syringe (3) (pg 3 li 145-148 and Fig. 1), and Fig. 8 shows a hose to connect the syringe to the vent of the mold. Kang further teaches that a method for analyzing gas generated during injection includes connecting a syringe to a gas vent of a plastic injection mold; and measuring a volume of gas discharged from the gas vent during injection using a syringe, and the analysis results can be used to develop a prescription for a resin with low gas generation during injection, optimize injection conditions such as plasticization conditions, injection temperature, and injection speed that can minimize gas generation, and optimize mold structure (pg 3 li 140-143).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Black with the teachings of Kang and provide the gas vent, the syringe (which inherently comprises a movable piston), and the hose with Black’s mold in order to measure a volume of gas discharged from the gas vent during injection using the syringe and use the analysis results to develop a prescription for a resin with low gas generation during injection, optimize injection conditions such as plasticization conditions, injection temperature, and injection speed that can minimize gas generation, and optimize mold structure.
Kang teaches that a method for analyzing gas generated during injection includes connecting a syringe to a gas vent of a plastic injection mold; and measuring a volume of gas discharged from the gas vent during injection using a syringe (pg 3 li 123-127). Thus, Kang teaches the syringe having a volume enough to collect gas discharged from the gas vent during injection. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the volume of syringe in order to collect gas discharged from the gas vent during injection.
Kang teaches that the purpose of the present invention is to provide a method capable of measuring the components and amounts of gases generated inside a mold during an actual injection process (pg 2 li 79-81), and in order to achieve the above object, a pressure gauge or syringe is connected to the gas vent to analyze the pressure and volume of gas coming out of the gas vent (pg 2 li 89-90). Thus, since the gas generated in the mold during injection came out of the gas vent, the pressure of the mold would be maintained.
Kang is silent to a one way valve.
Shao relates to the technical field of atmosphere detection equipment, in particular to a sealed collection device for atmosphere detection (Abstract). Shao teaches that the air intake control assembly 8 includes a one-way valve 11, which is horizontally fixedly mounted on the connecting end of the air intake pipe 4 and the gas collection chamber 3, and when the air pump 2 introduces gas into the gas collection chamber 3 through the air inlet pipe 4, the oneway valve 11 can ensure that the gas enters the gas collection chamber 3 normally, when the air pump 2 stops guiding gas, the one-way valve 11 can prevent the gas from flowing back from the gas collection chamber 3 into the air inlet pipe 4, thereby achieving a sealing effect at the air inlet end of the gas collection chamber 3 (Pa [0053] and Fig. 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Black in view of Kang with the teachings of Shao and provide the air intake control assembly including the one-way valve at the air inlet end of the syringe in order to prevent the gas from flowing back from the syringe into the hose, thereby achieving a sealing effect at the air inlet end of the syringe.
With respect to claim 18, it is noted that the claimed limitation is an intended use since the apparatus of the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
With respect to claim 19, Hutchinson as applied in the combination regarding claim 17 above further teaches pressure sensors (“additionally, one or more check valves, pressure sensors, flow regulators, fluid lines, temperature sensors, detectors, and the like can be added to the temperature control systems as desired”, co 42 li 34-37). It is noted that the claimed limitation is an intended use since the apparatus of the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
With respect to claim 20, Hutchinson as applied in the combination regarding claim 17 above further teaches flow regulators (“additionally, one or more check valves, pressure sensors, flow regulators, fluid lines, temperature sensors, detectors, and the like can be added to the temperature control systems as desired”, co 42 li 34-37). It is noted that the claimed limitation is an intended use since the apparatus of the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742