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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
The arguments are persuasive to claims 16-18, but the arguments are otherwise not persuasive because the claims are not limited as described in the arguments.
Although Loulourgas bearings are centered around a rotational axis, this does conflict with the claim. The bearings of the present invention are also centered around a rotational axis.
The bearings of Loulourgas are arranged around the outer area, when viewed looking at the face of the platen. This is a peripheral location. The ejectors are located inside this outer area and the claim is met.
Positioning the bearing perpendicular to the platen face, as claimed in claims 16-18, however, is distinguishing from the known prior art.
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 17-18, the claims contains the term “a bearing structure” which is already recited in claim 1 and 8.
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 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loulourgas (US 6012914 A) and in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
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.
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.
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 NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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 at 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
Prosecution Insights