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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that Bokich would render Takigawa unsuitable for its intended purpose and would contact the mold cavity/injected resin. Both allegations appear to rely on an interpretation that the positioning blocks of Bokich would replace or be positioned adjacent to the insert ring (17) of Takigawa. However, Bokich clearly places the blocks on the exterior of the mold parts not in contact with the cavity or the would be injected resin see Fig 1, 2. Hence, applicant arguments would require a more complex and counterintuitive combination than that suggested by the examiner; indeed, such a combination would go against the placement suggested by the Bokich reference itself. The examiner further reminds applicant that 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).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takigawa (US 2006/0065998) in view of Bokich (US 2004/0043103).
As to claim 1, Takigawa teaches an injection molding apparatus comprising: a first mold (either of 23 and 24); a second mold configured to be moved toward and away from the first mold (the opposite of 23 or 24), the second mold being configured to define a cavity for forming a molded body with the first mold [0016, 0067 Fig 1, 4]; a stripper (14) disposed between the first mold and the second mold and configured to separate the molded body from the first mold [0076-0080].
Takigawa does not explicitly state a first cotter block disposed at the stripper; and a second cotter block disposed at the second mold and configured to align the second mold with the first mold with the first cotter block, wherein at least a portion of the second cotter block is configured to roll relative to the first cotter block with neither contacting the molding material in the cavity.
Bokich teaches a positioning device for a molding device [Abstract]. Bokich teaches a first cotter block disposed at the stripper; and a second cotter block disposed at the second mold and configured to align the second mold with the first mold with the first cotter block, wherein at least a portion of the second cotter block is configured to roll relative to the first cotter block with the cotter blocks not forming part of the mold cavity and on the exterior of the mold parts[0049, 0032-0034, 0038, 0040, Fig 9-14, 16]. Bokich teaches that these positioning device are used within molding devices to ensure alignment between the two halves and are “well known” [0028-0030]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Takigawa and included the positioning device of Bokich including state a first cotter block disposed at the stripper; and a second cotter block disposed at the second mold and configured to align the second mold with the first mold with the first cotter block, wherein at least a portion of the second cotter block is configured to roll relative to the first cotter block with the cotter blocks not forming part of the cavity and do not contact the molding material, as suggested by Bokich, in order to align the mold halves and such a configuration was well known in molding arts.
As to claim 2, the combination of Takigawa and Bokich incorporates the positioning device of Bokich as explained above. The positioning device of Bokich discloses the first cotter block comprises a cotter protrusion (18) phrased as a “male portion”, wherein the second cotter block defines a cotter groove (522) configured to receive the cotter protrusion therein phrased as a “female portion, and wherein the cotter protrusion is configured to roll relative to the cotter groove [0049, 0032-0034, 0038, 0040, Fig 6, 9-14, 16].
As to claim 3, the combination of Takigawa and Bokich incorporates the positioning device of Bokich as explained above. The positioning device of Bokich discloses second cotter block comprises: a block main body that is disposed at the second mold and defines the cotter groove; and at least one cotter bearing (38, 588) disposed at the block main body and exposed to the cotter groove, the cotter bearing being configured to rollably support via rollers (38, 588) the cotter protrusion to be inserted into the cotter groove [0049, 0032-0034, 0038, 0040, Fig 6, 9-14, 16].
As to claim 4, the combination of Takigawa and Bokich incorporates the positioning device of Bokich as explained above. The positioning device of Bokich discloses the at least one cotter bearing comprises a first bearing (38, 588) and a second bearing (38, 588) that are configured to rollably support the cotter protrusion [0049, 0032-0034, 0038, 0040, Fig 6, 9-14, 16].
As to claim 5, the combination of Takigawa and Bokich the cotter blocks placed on lateral sides the stripper and second mold as explained above but does not explicitly state 4 pairs of cotter blocks each on a different lateral surface. However, this is just a mere duplication/rearrangement of part, see MPEP 2144.04 VI B and C.
As to claim 6, Takigawa teaches the first mold comprises a molding protrusion, wherein the second mold defines a molding groove corresponding to the molding protrusion, and wherein the first mold and the second mold are configured to define the cavity between the molding protrusion and the molding groove [Fig 1, 4].
The examiner has interpreted the limitation of claim 1: “second mold configured to be moved toward and away from the first mold” as inclusive of relative motion. In other words, either mold can be displaced as long as it would have the effect of the second mold being displaced toward and away the first mold. Furthermore, whether one mold halve is displaceable relative to other is just a rearrangement of part, generally recognized to be obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
As to claim 7, the combination of Takigawa and Bokich incorporates the positioning device of Bokich as explained above. The positioning device of Bokich includes the second cotter block defines a draft angle with respect to the first cotter block, the draft angle being zero degrees with respect to a direction of movement of the second cotter block relative to the first cotter block [Fig 6, 9-14, 16].
As to claim 8, Takigawa teaches that the article produces is “deep-bottomed, concave container” [Abstract] which could presumably be used as a liner for a hydrogen tank. Furthermore, using the apparatus to produce a liner is an intended use of the apparatus without further structural limitations on the apparatus itself. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II. Further still, the molded body is the article worked upon which does not limit apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takigawa (US 2006/0065998) in view of Bokich (US 2004/0043103), as applied to claims 1-8 above, and in further view of Kupiec (Chamfer of Fillet: It’s More Than a Coin Toss).
As to claim 16, the combination of Takigawa and Bokich teach the cotter protrusion inserted into the cotter groove as explained above, the protrusion of Bokich appears to have rounded edges (referred to as fillet)[Fig 8-18] but doesn’t explicitly state the edges are chamfered.
Kupiec teaches general rules for producing parts and notes that “When and where to use chamfered or filleted edges is a question posed time and time again by design engineers and machinists” and notes that chamfers are usually cheaper and faster to produce [comparison between chamfer and fillet for external edges] and notes “Chamfers are more forgiving when design to fit mating parts” [Which Method is the Most Popular]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Takigawa and Bokich and utilized a cotter protrusion with a chamfer, as suggested by Kupiec, as both fillet and chamfer edges were commonly used and chamfer edges are usually cheaper and faster to produce and are more forgiving for mating parts.
As to claim 17, the combination of Takigawa and Bokich teach at least one cotter bearing (588, 590) comprises (i) a first portion received inside the block main body (side on 586) and (ii) a second portion protruding to the cotter groove (part on 588) [Fig 16].
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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759