DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
The allowability of prior claim 16 (incporated into claim 1) is withdrawn in view of the newly presented prior art of US20020081350A1 (see Fig 2; and prior art rejection below).
Claim 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
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.
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.
Claim 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loulourgas (US 6012914 A) and in view of Elder (US 20020081350 A1).
In reference to claim 1, 8, and 14, Loulourgas discloses an injection molding machine (Fig 5) comprising a mold clamping device (cf. Loulourgas , mold clamping plate 12) comprising:
a fixed platen;
a movable platen configured to move closer toward or away from the fixed
platen; (injection molding machines are generally provided with a fixed and a
movable plate, Loulourgas concerns an injection molding machine, cf. Loulourgas , title)
a rotary platen provided on one platen of the fixed platen and the movable
platen, a mold being attachable to the rotary platen (cf. Loulourgas , rotary plate 10); and
an extrusion device provided on the one platen and configured to extrude a
molded article from the mold ( see also comments below, cf. 02, column 2, line
60, ''push rods”),,
wherein the rotary platen is disposed at a side of a surface of the one platen
facing the other platen to face the one platen, the rotary platen being provided
to be rotatable via a bearing structure (cf. 02, column 2, lines 42, 43),
wherein the extrusion device is disposed on a surface of the one platen
opposite to the surface facing the other platen (implicit from the disclosure of the
pushing rods in O 1, column 2, lines 60-62),
wherein the bearing structure is configured to bear the rotary platen at a position
away from a rotation center in a radial direction (cf. 01, column 2, lines 47-51 in
particular "bearing retaining ring 66'1), and
wherein the extrusion device is provided with an ejector rod that protrudes
radially inward than the bearing structure (as indicated in 01, column 2, lines
60-62 holes 56 are used to accommodate the push rods. It can be seen from
figure 5 of O 1, that the holes 56 are located radially inward in comparison to
bearing retaining ring 66).
Loulourgas does not explicitly recite that one platen is fixed and another is movable however this is an art recognized standard configuration of injection molding machines. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of skill in the art to configure the invention to comprise a movable and static platen as claimed.
Furthermore, in the same field, Elder teaches that one platen is fixed and another is movable (abstract) and shows
PNG
media_image1.png
76
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at Fig 2, copied below:
PNG
media_image2.png
742
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which is substantially similar to the claimed structure as illustrated by Applicants Fig 3, shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
580
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and shown comparatively, below:
PNG
media_image4.png
742
1273
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The context of Elder is directed to “A rotate mechanism is a device that is utilized to quickly rotate a large mass, such as, for example, a mold component of an injection molding” thus the utilization of the bearing structure of Elder the Loulourgas prior art is an obvious integration.
In reference to claim 2 the cited prior art discloses the claimed features in Fig 5 of Loulourgas .
In reference to claim 3 the cited prior art discloses the claimed features in Fig 5 of Loulourgas and see holes 56 in figure 2 and 3 of Loulourgas .
In reference to claim 4 the cited prior art discloses the claimed features in Fig 5 of Loulourgas and see holes 56 in figure 2 and 3 of Loulourgas .
In reference to claim 5 the cited prior art discloses the claimed features in Fig 5 of Loulourgas and see ''bearing retaining ring 66".
In reference to claim 6 the cited prior art discloses the claimed features in Fig 5 of Loulourgas .
In reference to claim 7 the cited prior art discloses the claimed features in Fig 5 of Loulourgas .
In reference to claim 9 the cited prior art discloses the claimed features in Fig 5 of Loulourgas .
In reference to claim 10 the cited prior art discloses the claimed features in Fig 5 of Loulourgas and see holes 56 in figure 2 and 3 of Loulourgas .
In reference to claim 11 the cited prior art discloses the claimed features in Fig 5 of Loulourgas and see holes 56 in figure 2 and 3 of Loulourgas .
In reference to claim 12-13 the cited prior art discloses the claimed features in Fig 5 of Loulourgas and see ''bearing retaining ring 66". As can be seen from D5, a plurality of plate members are being applied. These members would reduce friction.
In reference to claim 15 the cited prior art discloses the claimed features in Fig 3 of Elder.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
Examiner has utilized USPTO approved search resources, such as EIC or external tools, beyond routine search tools and/or leveraged experts in the field. Examiner has cited and explained the relevance of prior art not used in rejections but pertinent to the claims or disclosure. Examiner has provided detailed search documentation through detailed Search Notes, such as annotated search results that identify which data sets were reviewed. When citing the prior art examiner has used annotations clearly in prior art rejections such as, using item-to-item matching to the prior art, pairing exact claim language to particular language used in the prior art, and/or clearly explaining examiner’s interpretation as to how a citation maps to claim language especially when there is not a one-to-one matching of terms.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
