DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 29 June 2026, amending claims 1-14, adding claims 15-18, are acknowledged.
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
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 1-6, 10, 14-15, 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanek (US 5,789,034 A) in view of Bielfeldt (GB 2 198 078 A).
Regarding claim 1, Urbanek discloses a tie-bar-less clamping unit for a moulding machine (title/abstract), comprising:
a machine frame 11, which is formed for absorbing clamping forces;
a mold mounting plate 6, equated with the fixed platen, arranged to be stationary in relation to the machine frame;
mold mounting plate 7, equated with the movable platen, that can move relative to the machine frame; and
a piston rod 1, equated with the push rod,
Urbanek does not appear to expressly discloses a pair of hydraulic pressure pads or a control/regulation unit.
.
However, Bielfeldt discloses a press (title/abstract) including a hydraulic short-stroke device 4, equated with the claimed hydraulic pad (2:28-3:14; 5:3+; FIG. 1-4), and a controller and regulating unit capable of controlling and regulating the clamping unit and the pads independently (3:28+, 6:13+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Urbanek to include the pads and controller of Bielfeldt, in order to allow for faster movement of the press between and open/close state and while also allowing precise control of the press over the working distance with a device known in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Urbanek discloses an ejector support plate 10 between the push rod 1 and movable platen 7 (FIG. 1; 2:56+).
Regarding claim 3-4, Bielfeldt and Urbanek suggests that the hydraulic pad may be arranged between the at least one push rod and the ejector support plate or between the ejector support plate and the movable platen, as the inclusion of the pads of Bielfeldt would necessarily require a selection of one of the claimed locations, e.g. the claimed locations are prima facie obvious to try.
Regarding claim 5-6, Urbanek discloses a pivot 15, equated with the claimed force transmission unit comprising a flexure hinge, is arranged between the at least one push rod 1 and the movable platen 7 (FIG. 1; 2:56+).
Regarding claim 10, Bielfeldt and Urbanek discloses hydraulic cylinders for opening and closing the molds, equated with the claimed fast stroke drive mechanism for carrying out a fast stroke movement (Urbanek FIG. 1; 2:45+ and Bielfeldt FIG. 1-4; 5:3+).
Regarding claim 14, Urbanek and Bielfeldt discloses a molding machine (title/abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Urbanek and Bielfeldt disclose the push rod is arranged substantially centrally with respect to the movable platen (Urbanek FIG. 1; 2:45+ and Bielfeldt FIG. 1-4; 5:3+).
Regarding claim 17, Urbanek and Bielfeldt disclose the fast stroke drive mechanism is hydraulically (Urbanek FIG. 1; 2:45+ and Bielfeldt FIG. 1-4; 5:3+).
Regarding claim 18, Urbanek discloses the machine frame is substantially C-shaped (FIG. 1).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanek (US 5,789,034 A) in view of Bielfeldt (GB 2 198 078 A) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Eppich et al. (DE 10 2018 103 448 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Urbanek does not appear to expressly disclose a measuring unit.
However, Eppich discloses a similar clamping unit (title/abstract) comprises a measuring unit 7 for capturing data, wherein the measuring unit configured to capture data relating to the application of the clamping force and/or the parallelism of the fixed platen and the movable platen (FIG. 2+; pp. 4, 5-6).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Urbanek to include the measuring unit of Eppich, in order to allow for greater control/regulation of the pressing device.
Regarding claim 12, Urbanek, Bielfeldt and Eppich suggest the clamping unit comprises an evaluation unit 17, equated with the claimed control or regulation unit, configured for controlling or regulating the clamping unit, based on data relating to the application of the clamping force or the parallelism of the fixed platen and the movable platen (Eppich pp. 5-6; Bielfeldt 5:3+).
Regarding claim 13, Urbanek, Bielfeldt and Eppich suggest the control or regulation unit configured to controlling or regulating the first and second pressure pads independently of each other (Eppich pp. 5-6; Bielfeldt 5:3+).
Claims 7-9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanek (US 5,789,034 A) in view of Bielfeldt (GB 2 198 078 A) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Venrooij et al. (US 7,771,184 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Urbanek does not appear to expressly disclose a mold platen mounted on a fluid bed.
However, Venrooij discloses an injection molding machine (title/abstract) which includes a fluid bed upon which the molds are mounted (FIG. 1A-2B; 1:65+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Urbanek to include the fluid bed of Venrooij, in order to simplify and compress the size of the resulting mold tool (Venrooij 1:65+).
Regarding claims 8, Venrooij discloses that the mould platen mounted in a fluid bed, and the movement of the fixed platen and/or the movable platen and/or the mould platen is guided (FIG. 1A-2B; 1:65+).
Regarding claim 9, Venrooij discloses that the fluid bed and the fixed platen and/or the movable platen and/or the at least one mould platen are designed that together they have the function of an in particular double-acting hydraulic cylinder (1:65+).
Regarding claim 16, Venrooij discloses the fluid bed and the at least one of the fixed platen, the movable platen or the mould platen: are configured via a protrusion on the mould platen so as to have the function of a hydraulic cylinder; or are configured so as to have the function of a double-acting hydraulic cylinder (1:65+).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, see pp. 5-6, filed 29 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-14 under 102(a)(1) 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 in view of Bielfeldt.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FUELLER KLAUS et al.
DE 102004024731 A1
FUELLER KLAUS et al.
EP 1512512 A2
REINHARDT THOMAS
WO 2007141228 A1
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p EST.
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 at (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 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights