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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 05/12/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-6, 9-10, 16, and 19 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (KR20200058226 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Noh in view of Yasuhiko et al. (JPS5919126 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Yasuhiko.
Regarding claim 1, Noh teaches:
A device (Fig 1: injection mold 1), comprising:
a cylinder unit detachably coupled to a housing unit (Fig 3: cylinder 190, cam unit 150, cylinder body 191, second inclined cam 170; Fig 3-4 illustrates fasteners which imply the fasteners can be removed to remove the components. Furthermore, all components are inherently detachable from each other);
a cutting unit detachably coupled to the cylinder unit (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3-7: cutting blade 112), the cutting unit configured to move, responsive to an operation of the cylinder unit, toward an injection molding unit (Fig 5-7: upper core 70) to cut a gate (Fig 5-6: side gate 201) of an injection-molded object (Fig 4-6: [0056]);
a cover core unit detachably coupled to the injection molding unit (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7: runner block 120; [0041]), the cover core unit arranged to face the gate (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7), the cover core unit comprising: a cover core main body (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7) having a first gate groove defined therein facing the gate (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7: lower runner groove 121); and a cover core extension block (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7) having a first passing-through hole defined therein through which the cutting unit passes (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7), the cover core extension block being connected to the cover core main body and the first gate groove (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7; [0047]), wherein the cutting unit is arranged to be capable of passing through the cover core unit (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7);
a cutting core unit detachably coupled to the cover core unit and supported by the cover core extension block (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7), the cutting core unit arranged to face the gate (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7), wherein the cutting unit is configured to be capable of passing through the cutting core unit (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7); and
a cylinder rod of the cylinder unit (Fig 3, 5-7: vertical bar 173; [0061]).
PNG
media_image1.png
688
1108
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Noh does not teach wherein the cutting core unit comprises a same material as a material of the cutting unit.
Noh is silent as to the specific material used in the cutting core and the cutting unit.
However, Noh teaches that metal having excellent heat resistance is suitable for components of the injection mold for the motivation of providing heat resistance to components exposed to the molten resin ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutting core and the cutting unit as taught by Noh to be made of the same metal having excellent heat resistance as taught by Noh in order to provide heat resistance to components exposed to the molten resin.
Noh does not teach a position fixation block connected to a cylinder rod of the cylinder unit and configured to fix the position of the cutting unit by being inserted into the cutting unit,
In the same field of endeavor regarding injection molds, Yasuhiko teaches a position fixation block connected to a cylinder rod and configured to fix the position of a cutting unit by being inserted into the cutting unit (Annotated Fig 3) for the motivation of allowing easy attachment/detachment of the cutting unit (Fig 3 illustrates the position fixation block is attached to the cutting unit via threading).
PNG
media_image2.png
321
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cylinder rod as taught by Noh with the position fixation block as taught by Yasuhiko in order to allow easy attachment/detachment.
Regarding claim 2, Noh in view of Yasuhiko teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Noh further teaches wherein the cutting unit is configured to cut the gate during a process of maintaining a holding pressure inside the injection molding unit (Fig 5-6; [0025]).
Regarding claim 3, Noh in view of Yasuhiko teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Noh further teaches a cutting position adjustment unit configured to adjust a position of the cutting unit by supporting the cutting unit, wherein the cutting position adjustment unit is positioned on a top of the cylinder unit (Fig 3-4: bush 176; [0061]).
Noh does not teach plurality of cutting position adjustment units.
However, it has been held that duplication of parts is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the cutting position adjustment unit as taught by Noh to provide additional support to actuation of the cutting unit.
Regarding claim 4, Noh in view of Yasuhiko teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Noh further teaches wherein the cylinder unit comprises: a cylinder main body installed in the housing unit (Fig 3: cylinder 190, rod 192); and the cylinder rod movably coupled to the cylinder main body, the cylinder rod being connected to the cutting unit (Fig 3-4: Fig 3, 5-7: vertical bar 173; [0061]).
Yasuhiko further teaches a cylinder unit comprising:
a cylinder main body installed in the housing unit (hydraulic cylinder 15);
a cylinder rod movably coupled to the cylinder main body (Annotated Fig 3), the cylinder rod being configured to move toward the injection molding unit or to move away from the injection molding unit (ln 88-95), the cylinder rod being connected to the cutting unit (Annotated Fig 3).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches the cylinder rod being configured to move toward the injection molding unit when a hydraulic pressure is generated in the cylinder main body or to move away from the injection molding unit when the hydraulic pressure is no longer generated.
PNG
media_image2.png
321
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Noh in view of Yasuhiko does not teach the cylinder rod being configured to move toward the injection molding unit when a hydraulic pressure is generated in the cylinder main body or to move away from the injection molding unit when the hydraulic pressure is no longer generated.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the hydraulic cylinder unit as taught by Noh in view of Yasuhiko would be configured to either extend or retract the cylinder rod when hydraulic pressure is applied and conversely, retract or extend when pressure is not applied. Therefore there is a limited number of ways to operate the hydraulic cylinder as taught by the prior art.
Since there is a limited number of ways to operate the prior art cylinder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to have the cylinder rod move toward the injection molding unit when a hydraulic pressure is generated in the cylinder main body or to move away from the injection molding unit when the hydraulic pressure is no longer generated.
Regarding claim 5, Noh in view of Yasuhiko teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
Yasuhiko further teaches wherein the cutting unit comprises: a cutting block having an insertion groove defined therein and configured to receive the position fixation block, the cutting block being positioned to face the cylinder rod; a cutting blade connected to the cutting block and configured to cut the gate; and a cutting coupling portion configured to couple the cutting block to the cylinder rod (Annotated Fig 3).
Regarding claim 6, Noh in view of Yasuhiko teaches the apparatus of claim 5.
Noh further teaches wherein the cutting position adjustment units have a through-hole (Fig 3-4).
Yasuhiko further teaches a cutting position adjustment unit (Annotated Fig 3; portion of core body 2 that surrounds the cutting unit and limits the movement of the cutting unit in a similar manner to bush 176 of Noh) defined therein to receive the cutting coupling portion, the cutting coupling portion being configured to pass through the through-hole, and wherein the cutting position adjustment unit has a passing-through hole defined therein to receive the position fixation block, the position fixation block being configured to pass through the passing-through hole (Annotated Fig 3).
Noh in view of Yasuhiko does not teach the cutting position adjustment units are plate-shaped.
Noh teaches the cutting position adjustment unit is cylindrical.
However, it has been held that changes in shape are obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the shape of the cutting position adjustment unit as taught by Noh and Yasuhiko to be plate shaped.
Alternatively, it has been held that making an integral component separable is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have separated the bush of Noh into individual sections the result of which would resemble a plurality of stacked plate shaped washers.
Regarding claim 9, Noh in view of Yasuhiko teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Noh further teaches wherein the cutting core unit comprises: a cutting core protrusion inserted into an insertion groove in the cover core main body (Fig 3); a cutting core main body having a second gate groove defined therein connected to the first gate groove (Fig 3, 5-7) and a second passing-through hole defined therein through which the cutting unit is configured to pass (Fig 3), the cutting core main body being connected to the cutting core protrusion and facing the gate (Fig 3, 5-7); and a coupling portion configured to couple the cutting core main body and the cover core main body to each other (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 16, Noh teaches:
A device (Fig 1: injection mold 1), comprising:
a cutting unit (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3-7: cutting blade 112) configured to move, responsive to an operation of a cylinder unit (Fig 3: cylinder 190, cam unit 150, cylinder body 191, second inclined cam 170), toward an injection molding unit (Fig 5-7: upper core 70) to cut a gate (Fig 5-6: side gate 201)of an injection-molded object (Fig 4-6: [0056]);
a cover core unit detachably coupled to the injection molding unit and configured to face the gate (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7: runner block 120; [0041]), the cover core unit comprising a cover core main body (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7) and a cover core extension block having a first passing-through hole defined therein through which the cutting unit passes (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7), wherein the cutting unit passes through the cover core unit (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7); and
a cutting core unit detachably coupled to the cover core unit and supported by the cover core extension block and configured to face the gate (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7), wherein the cutting unit passes through the cutting core unit (Annotated Noh Fig 3, Fig 3, 5-7).
Noh does not teach wherein the cutting core unit comprises a same material as a material of the cutting unit.
Noh is silent as to the specific material used in the cutting core and the cutting unit.
However, Noh teaches that metal having excellent heat resistance is suitable for components of the injection mold for the motivation of providing heat resistance to components exposed to the molten resin ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutting core and the cutting unit as taught by Noh to be made of the same metal having excellent heat resistance as taught by Noh in order to provide heat resistance to components exposed to the molten resin.
Noh does not teach a position fixation block connected to a cylinder rod of the cylinder unit and configured to fix the position of the cutting unit by being inserted into the cutting unit,
In the same field of endeavor regarding injection molds, Yasuhiko teaches a position fixation block connected to a cylinder rod and configured to fix the position of a cutting unit by being inserted into the cutting unit (Annotated Fig 3) for the motivation of allowing easy attachment/detachment of the cutting unit (Fig 3 illustrates the position fixation block is attached to the cutting unit via threading).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cylinder rod as taught by Noh with the position fixation block as taught by Yasuhiko in order to allow easy attachment/detachment.
Regarding claim 19, Noh in view of Yasuhiko teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Noh further teaches wherein the cylinder unit is detachably coupled to a housing unit (cylinder body 191; Fig 3-4 illustrates fasteners which imply the fasteners can be removed to remove the components. Furthermore, all components are inherently detachable from each other).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh in view of Yasuhiko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (CN113619028 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Noh in view of Yasuhiko teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Noh further teaches wherein the housing unit comprises: a first housing unit configured to support the injection molding unit (Fig 3-4: cam unit 150), the cylinder unit being mounted in the first housing unit (Fig 3-4; [0057]); and a second housing unit coupled to the first housing unit, a lower portion of the cylinder unit being arranged inside the second housing unit (Fig 3-4: cylinder 190, cylinder body 191, rod 192; [0059]),
Yasuhiko teaches the cylinder unit that is hydraulic (hydraulic cylinder 15).
Noh in view of Yasuhiko does not teach a fluid, which leaks from the cylinder unit, flowing into the second housing unit.
In the same field of endeavor regarding injection molds, Li teaches an oil cylinder for actuating a cutting device using an oil path that flows into a housing unit to drive the cylinder unit (Fig 2: oil path 9, cylinder 8; ln 181-186).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the hydraulic system as taught by Noh with the oil path and oil cylinder operating system as taught by Li and the results of the substitution would have been predictable since both references teach using cylinder units to operate a cutting device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, see new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues against the combination of Noh and Yasuhiko. However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that Noh does not teach use of the same material to minimize wear. However, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Since using the same material is made obvious by Noh’s desire for heat resistant parts, the benefit of wear minimization would naturally occur since the enabling structure of comprising the same material is met.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the limitations of claim 10. However, applicant merely makes general allegations and does not address the cited teachings relied upon in the art rejection to teach said limitations.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights