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 of Species 2 in the reply filed on 1 December 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 4, 7, 11, and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, both paragraphs beginning with “performing” should be further indented to indicate that the paragraphs relate back to the earlier language of “in a case of stopping an operation of a molding cycle”.
In line 3 of claim 5, “a screw” and “a resin” should be replaced with “the screw” and “the resin” for consistency with claim 1.
In line 3 of claim 12, “a screw” and “a resin” should be replaced with “the screw” and “the resin” for consistency with claim 8.
In line 3 of claim 16, “the controller” should be replaced with “the control device” for consistency with claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2015-164782 (“Okamoto”) (cited in an IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Okamoto discloses a molding cycle stopping method ([0058]-[0061], [0063]-[0065] of the attached translation, Fig. 4), comprising:
in a case of stopping an operation of a molding cycle (see id.) in an injection device including a heating cylinder and a screw provided in the heating cylinder (the heating barrel 10 and the screw 21, [0027]-[0029], Fig. 1),
performing a temperature lowering process including lowering a temperature of the heating cylinder from a molding cycle execution temperature to a standby temperature ([0062], [0065], [0067]-[0070], Fig. 4); and
performing a continuous purge process including repeatedly purging a resin until a predetermined termination condition is satisfied ([0060], [0070]).
Regarding claim 2, Okamoto discloses that the temperature lowering process includes, based on a preset specified time (the predetermined time T3, [0063], Fig. 4) and a preset specified temperature range (ΔTzx, [0062], Fig. 4), lowering the temperature of the heating cylinder by the specified temperature range every specified time ([0065], [0067]-[0069], Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Okamoto discloses:
wherein the molding cycle execution temperature is different for each zone that is a division in a length direction of the heating cylinder ([0030], [0036], Figs. 1-2), and
wherein the specified temperature range is a temperature range common to each zone ([0061]: “Since the control of the heating set temperature of each heating means in each section is basically the same, the heating barrel temperature control method of the injection molding machine according to the present invention will be explained using section H3 (supply section) as a representative.”, [0062]: “the heating setting temperature correction value ΔTzx for one correction for each heating means is automatically set in the control means” (emphasis added)).
Regarding claim 5, Okamoto discloses that the continuous purge process repeats a metering operation and an injection operation, the metering operation including rotating a screw to measure a resin, the injection operation including driving the screw in an axial direction to inject the resin ([0014]).
Regarding claim 8, see the rejection of claim 1. With respect to the claimed control device, Okamoto discloses a control means ([0062]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 9, see the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, see the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, see the rejection of claim 5.
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.
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.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto, as applied to claim 5 or 12 above, and further in view of JP H02-169225 (“Neko”).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, in Okamoto, purging is terminated at a time Tf ([0070]). Accordingly, Okamoto does not disclose terminating the purging process when an injection pressure exceeds a specified allowable injection pressure.
Neko discloses automatically sensing the completion of purging based on resin pressure (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have terminated the purging process of Okamoto based on resin pressure, as in Neko, rather than time so that the termination is based on actual conditions within the injection device.
Alternatively, changing the termination condition would represent a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto in view of US 2016/0361855 (“Shiraishi”).
Regarding claim 15, see the rejections of claims 1 and 8. With respect to the claimed mold clamping device, while Okamoto relates to an injection molding machine ([0001]), Okamoto does not explicitly disclose a mold clamping device. However, such structure is typically included in an injection molding machine. For example, see [0004], [0042], Fig. 1 of Shiraishi. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a mold clamping device in the injection molding machine of Okamoto to serve its well-known function. This would represent a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, see the abstract of KR 2020-0067438, the abstract of JP 2010-99995, and the abstract of US 3,601,854. Additionally, see the abstract of Shiraishi (cited in the rejections of claims 15-16).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John DeRusso whose telephone number is (571)270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00 AM-6:00 PM ET.
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, Sam 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.
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744