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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group II (claims 7-12) in the reply filed on 10/13/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 and 13-20 are withdrawn.
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 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bo et al. (CN209381347U, English translation provided).
Regarding claim 7, Bo discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5, a rubber composite extruder head (page 1, line 14), comprising: a fixed die body (item 10 in Fig. 1 (page 3, line 141)) and movable die bodies (item 20 (including items 21, 22, 23) in Fig. 4 (page 3, lines 141, 142); page 3, lines 166-170);
wherein locking devices (item 30 (including items 31, 32 (page 3, line 142)) in Fig. 1 (page 3, lines 166-173)) for the rubber composite extruder head are respectively installed on both sides of the fixed die body (i.e., as shown in Fig. 1, there are two locking structures 30 disposed on each side of the mold body 10), each of the locking devices for the rubber composite extruder head comprises a lock door (item 31 in Fig. 1), a connecting seat (e.g., the locking drive cylinder 60 is sitting on an end plate/member being in abutting contact with the mold body 10 as shown in Fig. 5 (page 5, lines 259-260); also see label of the connecting seat in attached annotated Figure I), a connecting plate (i.e., (via this connecting plate) the locking drive cylinder 60 is fixedly coupled to the locking structure 30 (page 5, lines 258-259); also see label of the connecting plate in attached annotated Figure I) and a mobile unit (item 60 in Fig. 1 (page 3, line 143; page 5, lines 260-261)),
wherein the lock door comprises a through hole, the connecting seat is arranged in the through hole, and the mobile unit is installed in an inner cavity of the connecting seat (i.e., as illustrated in Fig. 5, the locking drive cylinder 60 is installed inside the through hole in the lock door 30 and is sitting on the connecting seat);
the connecting plate is located outside the lock door, both ends are respectively connected with the lock door, and the mobile unit is connected with the connecting plate (e.g., see labels in attached annotated Figure I);
the mobile unit drives the lock door through the connecting plate to move reciprocally (page 5, lines 256-266 (e.g., the locked positions and the unlocked position (lines 260-261)));
an unopened side of a first connecting seat of a first locking device is connected with a first side surface of the fixed die body (see attached annotated Figure I (e.g., the left-side locking device)); and
an unopened side of a second connecting seat of a second locking device is connected with a second side surface of the fixed die body (see attached annotated Figure I (e.g., the right-side locking device)).
PNG
media_image1.png
671
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure I (based on Fig. 5 in the teachings of Bo et al.)
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bo et al. (CN209381347U, English translation provided) as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Deng et al. (CN101456244A, English translation provided).
Regarding claim 8, Bo discloses that, the extruder head, that is, the mold body 20 includes only the upper mold and the lower mold (page 4, lines 225-226). Thus, in this embodiment, Bo discloses that, the locking structure 30 inly has two locking arms (e.g., the upper locking arm 31 and the lower locking arm 31). If the locking structure 30 only has two locking arms, the body of the locking structure having the through hole being formed in the middle of the body is a cuboid structure.
However, Bo does not explicitly disclose that, the locking door/structure/device 30 is a C-type structure. In the same field of endeavor, C-type locking door, Deng discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, a C-type lock door of a rubber extrusion head locking mechanism (page 1, lines 14-15) includes a lock body 1 (having a cuboid structure), lock buckle 2 (including the upper one (or convex block) and the lower one (or convex block)) (page 2, line 86). It is noticed that, the two lock buckles are located on the same side surface of the locking body.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Bo to have the locking device for the extrusion head as Deng teaches that it is known to have the locking door/structure/device 30 is a C-type structure. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bo et al. (CN209381347U, English translation provided) and Deng et al. (CN101456244A, English translation provided) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Zhang et al. (US 8,206,142).
Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses the contact surfaces between the upper/lower convex blocks and the mold body. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose the contact surface is inclined plane having an angle of 3°-12°. In the same field of endeavor, hydraulic locking mechanism (for extruder), Zhnag discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 3, 4, an angle between the slant 10 on the pushing bar 3 and an axis of the pushing bar 3 is 8° (in the claimed range of 3°-12°).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Zhnag et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Bo in the combination to have the locking device for the extrusion head as Zhang teaches that it is known to have the contact surface between the upper/lower convex blocks and the mold body is inclined plane having an angle of 3°-12°. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 10, Bo discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 5 (also see label of the connecting plate in attached annotated Figure I), the connecting plate is a plate-like structure parallel to a side surface of the lock door, an upper end of the connecting plate is located above the through hole of the lock door and connected with the lock door, and a lower end of the connecting plate is located below the through hole of the lock door and connected with the lock door;
the connecting plate and the upper convex block are respectively located on both sides of the lock door.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bo et al. (CN209381347U, English translation provided) as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 12, Bo discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 5 (also see in attached annotated Figure I), the mobile unit (i.e., the locking drive cylinder 60) comprises a piston rod and a power mechanism (i.e., it is noticed that, in the locking drive cylinder, the necessary piston, rod, and the power source are involved to drive the movement of the locking door);
wherein a first end of the piston rod is connected with the power mechanism, and a second end is connected with middle of the connecting plate (see label of the connecting plate in attached annotated Figure I);
the power mechanism is installed in the inner cavity of the connecting seat;
the power mechanism comprises a hydraulic cylinder (e.g., item 141 is an upper mold opening and closing oil cylinder (page 3, line 146)), a cylinder;
in case that the piston rod is extended to the longest, upper wedge inclined planes and lower wedge inclined planes of lock doors are respectively not in contact with upper and lower locking surfaces of the movable die bodies (i.e., the locking door is moving along the rail frame 40 away from the body 10 for the unlocking position (i.e., the opening position) (page 5, lines 262-266)); and
in case that the piston rod is retracted, the upper wedge inclined planes and the lower wedge inclined planes of the lock doors are respectively in complete contact with the upper and lower locking surfaces of the movable die bodies to generate a locking force to achieve locking (i.e., the locking door is retracting along the rail frame 40 toward the body 10 for the locking position (i.e., the closing position) (page 5, lines 262-266)).
Bo individually teaches the cylinder 60 and the upper mold opening and closing oil (i.e., hydraulic) cylinder as claimed. Each of these configurations is utilized to improve the production speed of the preform. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine each of these embodiments into one configuration logically flows from their having been individually taught in the prior art as being known for achieving the same purpose.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 7, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Bo discloses the connecting seat for the cylinder drive unit. However, Bo does not explicitly disclose that the connecting seat is a rectangular annular structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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 L Hindenlang can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744