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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 10/21/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-16 and 19-20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noh et al. (KR20200058226 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Noh.
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; 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 (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, the cover core unit arranged to face the gate (Fig 5-7: lower core 40; [0041]), wherein the cutting unit is arranged to be capable of passing through the cover core unit (Fig 5-6; [0043]); and
a cutting core unit detachably coupled to the cover core unit, the cutting core unit arranged to face the gate (Fig 5-7: runner block 120), wherein the cutting unit is configured to be capable of passing through the cutting core unit ([0043, 0048]).
Regarding claim 2, Noh 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 8, Noh teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Noh further teaches wherein the cover core unit comprises: a cover core main body detachably coupled to the injection molding unit ([0041]) and having a first gate groove defined therein facing the gate (Fig 5-7: lower runner groove 121 extends into lower core 40); and a cover core extension block having a first passing-through hole defined therein through which the cutting unit passes ([0047]), the cover core extension block being connected to the cover core main body and the first gate groove and being configured to support the cutting core unit (Fig 5-7; [0047]; the cover core unit and cover core extension block of Noh are integral in lower core 40).
Regarding claim 9, Noh teaches the apparatus of claim 8.
Noh further teaches wherein the cutting core unit comprises: a cutting core protrusion (Fig 5-7, lower portion of lower runner block 120) inserted into an insertion groove in the cover core main body (Fig 5-7: hole 43; [0047]); a cutting core main body having a second gate groove defined therein connected to the first gate groove (Fig 3-7: lower runner groove 121) and a second passing-through hole defined therein through which the cutting unit is configured to pass (Fig 3-7; [0047]), the cutting core main body being connected to the cutting core protrusion (Fig 5-7; cutting core main body and cutting core protrusion of Noh is integral in block 120), the cutting core main body being supported by the cover core extension block and facing the gate (Fig 5-7; [0047]); 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 (Fig 3-7: cutting blade 112) configured to move, responsive to an operation of a 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 and configured to face the gate (Fig 5-7: lower core 40; [0041]), wherein the cutting unit passes through the cover core unit (Fig 5-6; [0043]); and
a cutting core unit detachably coupled to the cover core unit (Fig 5-7; [0043, 0048]) and configured to face the gate (Fig 5-7: runner block 120), wherein the cutting unit passes through the cutting core unit ([0043, 0048]).
Regarding claim 19, Noh teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
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).
Regarding claim 20, Noh teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Noh further teaches wherein the cover core unit comprises: a cover core main body having a first gate groove defined therein facing the gate (Fig 5-7: lower runner groove 121 extends into lower core 40); and a cover core extension block having a first passing-through hole defined therein through which the cutting unit passes and being configured to support the cutting core unit (Fig 5-7; [0047]).
Noh further teaches wherein the cover core unit comprises: a cover core main body detachably coupled to the injection molding unit ([0041]) and having a first gate groove defined therein facing the gate (Fig 5-7: lower runner groove 121 extends into lower core 40); and a cover core extension block having a first passing-through hole defined therein through which the cutting unit passes ([0047]), the cover core extension block being connected to the cover core main body and the first gate groove and being configured to support the cutting core unit (Fig 5-7; [0047]; the cover core unit and cover core extension block of Noh are integral in lower core 40).
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) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh.
Regarding claim 3, Noh 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 more support to actuation of the cutting unit.
Regarding claim 7, Noh teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Noh does not teach wherein the cutting core unit comprises a same material as a material comprising 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.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yasuhiko et al. (JPS5919126 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Yasuhiko.
Regarding claim 4, Noh teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Noh further teaches wherein the cylinder unit comprises: a cylinder main body installed in the housing unit; a cylinder rod movably coupled to the cylinder main body, the cylinder rod being connected to the cutting unit (Fig 3-4: cylinder 190, rod 192).
Noh 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; and a position fixation block connected to the cylinder rod 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 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); and
a position fixation block connected to the cylinder rod and configured to fix the position of the cutting unit by being inserted into the cutting unit (Annotated Fig 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
321
467
media_image1.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 substituted the cylinder unit and cutting unit as taught by Noh with the hydraulic cylinder unit and cutting unit as taught by Yasuhiko and the results of the substitution would have been predictable since both references teach using cylinder units to operate a cutting device.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh 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 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]),
Noh teaches the cylinder unit is pneumatic.
Noh 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 pneumatic 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 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that 1) Noh does not teach a cylinder detachably coupled to a housing unit. However, as stated in the art rejection above, Noh Fig 3-4 illustrates fasteners. However, applicant argues that such an arrangement does not constitute a readily detachable cylinder unit designed for quick removal and replacement. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner notes that the claim does not set any limitations as to the specific mechanism for detachment. Given the broad scope of the detachment mechanism, the fact that any component is inherently detachable from another component allows Noh to meet the limitations of the claim. Furthermore, rod 192 and 195 moves horizontally in relation to the cylinder body 191 ([0063]). Such a movement inherently requires the components to be detachable coupled.
Applicant argues that Noh does not teach a cutting unit detachably coupled to the cylinder unit, [the cutting unit] configured to move, responsive to an operation of the cylinder unit, toward an injection molding unit to cut a gate. Applicant argues that Noh does not teach that the detachable coupling means the cutting blade assembly can be separated and replaced without dismantling the whole system and that Noh lacks. Noh's blade 112 appears to be a permanently installed part of the mold apparatus during operation, not a unit designed to be detachably swapped out. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner notes that the claim does not set any limitations as to the specific mechanism for detachment. Given the broad scope of the detachment mechanism, the fact that any component is inherently detachable from another component allows Noh to meet the limitations of the claim. Furthermore, the cutting unit, cutting blade 112, is coupled to the cylinder unit, via cams 160 and 170. Horizontal movement of cam 160 causes cam 170 to move vertically ([0063]). Such a movement inherently requires the components to be detachable coupled. Applicant argues that Noh does not teach cutting during holding pressure. However, rather than being ambiguous as to when the gate is cut as suggested by applicant, Noh explicitly teaches that the cutting is performed while the mold is closed, i.e., a holding pressure is applied to the material inside by holding the mold halves closed (Fig 5; [0067-0070]).
Applicant argues that 3) Noh does not teach a cover core unit detachably coupled to the injection molding unit, [the cover core unit] arranged to face the gate, wherein the cutting unit is arranged to be capable of passing through the cover core unit. However, Noh teaches that lower core 40 is located in lower mold unit 2, and that the interpreted injection molding unit, upper core 70, is located in the upper mold unit 3 (Fig 1). Noh explicitly teaches that the upper mold unit 3 is detachably coupled to the lower mold unit 2 ([0039]). Applicant argues that the lower core 40 is not a cover core unit, but does not provide any arguments or evidence as to why the office’s interpretation is improper. Applicant attempts to classify the lower core 40 as “part of the permanent mold core, not a separate unit that can be uncoupled”, which as demonstrated above is false. Furthermore, it is not clear even if such a classification were true, why this would prevent lower core 40 from reading on “a cover core unit”. It is not clear how a discussion of the interpreted cover core unit and cover core extension block being integral is relevant to the above argument since the cover core extension block is not recited in the limitations being discussed. Applicant appears to argue that Noh does not teach that the cover core unit does not face the gate. However, the side gate 8 in Fig 5 is at least partially delimited by upper core 70, which is faced by lower core 40. Applicant appears to argue that Noh does not teach wherein the cutting unit is arranged to be capable of passing through the cover core unit. However, applicant concedes that the cutting blade in Noh presumably enters the area of lower core 40 to sever the gate. Rather than presume, one can simply refer to the cited Fig 5-7 to see that the cutting blade 112 slides in lower core 40 to cut the side gate material. Applicant argues that Noh does not teach the cover core unit 300 has a dedicated first passing-through hole (321) through which the cutting unit passes, and this unit can be removed as a whole for cleaning or replacement. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that 4) Noh does not teach a cutting core unit detachably coupled to the cover core unit, [the cutting core unit] arranged to face the gate, wherein the cutting unit is configured to be capable of passing through the cutting core unit. Applicant alleges that Noh does not teach a cover core unit, but as discussed above, applicant has not provided any arguments or evidence as to why the office’s interpretation is improper. Applicant argues that Noh does not teach a two-piece assembly where a runner insert (cutting core) is removably attached to a cover core insert. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner notes that the claim does not set any limitations as to the specific mechanism for detachment. Given the broad scope of the detachment mechanism, the fact that any component is inherently detachable from another component allows Noh to meet the limitations of the claim. Applicant argues that claim 1 explicitly requires the cutting core unit to be detachably coupled to the cover core unit, forming a modular sub-assembly. However, the examiner notes that there is no explicit recitation of the above in claim 1, or indeed in any of the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The remainder of applicant arguments rest on the presumption that Noh does not teach a cover corer unit, which as discussed is not supported by evidence or reasoning.
Applicant arguments regarding claim 16 are directed to similar subject matter as that discussed in claim 1 and therefore similar reasoning applied above applies here as well.
In summary, applicant appears to be improperly importing limitations from the specification to the claims. See MPEP 2111.01(II). It is suggested that the applicant amend the claims to reflect the alleged differences above between applicant specification and the prior art if the applicant wishes to patentably distinguish the claims from the prior art.
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.
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