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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention 1 and Species 1 in the reply filed on 6 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Regarding the invention restriction, the traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the entire application could be performed without serious burden because method claims 13 and 14 depend from elected independent claim 1, such that a search of the elected claims would necessarily encompass a search of claims 13 and 14.
This is not found persuasive because, as set forth in the restriction requirement, the apparatus of claim 1 can be used to practice a process that is materially different from those of claims 13 and 14. Claim 1 recites only structure, namely at least one spacer element that limits movement of the tool elements to a cleaning position and, together with the tool elements, forms an extended molding space “for receiving a plasticized melt”. That recitation is an intended use and does not require that any plasticized melt be received or that any cleaning or purging be performed. The apparatus of claim 1 may therefore be operated in a materially different process in which the spacer element serves a purpose unrelated to cleaning or purging, for example limiting the closing travel of the tool elements to establish a gap or shut height, and in which the extended molding space is not filled with plasticized melt, while the processes of claims 13 and 14 require filling the extended molding space with the plasticized melt. Accordingly, prior art references relevant to claim 1 are not necessarily relevant to claims 13 and 14, and searching for references relevant to claims 13 and 14 may omit art relevant to claim 1. Additionally, a serious search and examination burden exists because the processes of claims 13 and 14 require steps not recited in apparatus claim 1, including arranging the spacer element between the tool elements, moving the tool elements into the cleaning position, filling the extended molding space with plasticized melt, and moving the tool elements to the open position, and, for claim 14, carrying out at least one manufacturing cycle and at least one cleaning cycle in succession. Searching these process limitations requires a different search strategy (including different search queries and different classification areas) than searching the structural features of the apparatus of claim 1. That claims 13 and 14 depend from claim 1 does not eliminate this additional burden because the distinct process limitations must still be separately searched. See MPEP 808.02.
Regarding the species restriction, the traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 1-3 and 11-12 are generic to all of Species 1-5, such that the claims directed to all species could be examined without serious burden.
This is not found persuasive because the presence of one or more generic claims does not eliminate the burden of separately searching the species-specific claims. Claims 5-10 and 12 are directed to the mutually exclusive species set forth in the requirement, and those species, for example the one-piece stamped-bent spacer element of Species 1 (Figures 5a-5c), the multi-part spacer element having sections 5b' and 5b'' of Species 2 (Figures 6a-6c), the spacer element having an additional sealing element 5c of Species 3 (Figure 8d), the spacer element connected to and actuated from a recess in the cavity or core plate of Species 4 (Figure 9), and the cavity-side spacer element used with a single-part neck ring of Species 5 (Figures 10a-10b), present mutually exclusive structures that require different search strategies (including different search queries and possibly different classification areas). A serious search and examination burden therefore exists.
It is further noted that applicant's identification of claims 1-12 as reading on elected Species 1 is not accurate. Claim 4 is directed to nonelected Species 4 because claim 4 requires that the spacer element be connected to the cavity plate or the core plate and be actuated to extend from a surface of the cavity plate or the core plate, with the plate preferably having a recess in which the spacer element is accommodated in the closed position, which corresponds to the embodiment of Figure 9 (Species 4) and not to elected Species 1. Claim 4 therefore stands withdrawn as set forth below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4, 13, and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (claim 4) or invention (claims 13 and 14), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the title of the invention, “injection molding tooling tool” (both occurrences) should be replaced with “injection molding tool” for consistency with the remainder of the disclosure, including the claims and the abstract.
In the List of References on page 14, the reference sign 5b' is described as “First section of the spacer element”, and the reference sign 5b'' is described as “Second section of the spacer element”. These descriptions are inconsistent with the detailed description (last paragraph on page 12), which describes 5b' and 5b'' as two sections of the second section 5b of the spacer element.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “a gap between the two tool elements” (two occurrences). For consistency with claim 1, which recites “at least two tool elements”, the phrase “the two tool elements” should be replaced with “the at least two tool elements”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5, 7, and 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrases “preferably” and “particularly preferably” render claims 5, 7, and 9 indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d). A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “the spacer element preferably having an opening for the core to pass through”. It is unclear whether the opening is a required feature of the claim or is merely exemplary. For purposes of examination, the feature introduced by “preferably” is treated as exemplary and not required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “wherein preferably the first and second sections of the spacer element are formed in one piece, wherein particularly preferably the spacer element is a pin or a stamped-bent part, and wherein, if the spacer element is a stamped-bent part, the second section is produced by bending from the first section”. It is unclear whether the one-piece formation, the pin or stamped-bent form, and the bending feature are required or are merely exemplary, and the conditional phrase “if the spacer element is a stamped-bent part” further renders it unclear whether the bending feature is required. For purposes of examination, the features introduced by “preferably”, “particularly preferably”, and the conditional “if” clause are treated as exemplary and not required.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “wherein preferably the spacer element has a plurality of openings through which the cores of the core plate extend”. It is unclear whether the plurality of openings is a required feature of the claim or is merely exemplary. For purposes of examination, the feature introduced by “preferably” is treated as exemplary and not required.
Claim Interpretation
The claim limitation “spacer element” is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Although “element” is a generic placeholder, it is modified by the structural term “spacer”, and one of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification would understand “spacer” or “spacer element” to have a sufficiently definite structural meaning. See MPEP 2181(I)(A).
Claim 1 recites the spacer element in terms of capability, namely “at least one spacer element, which can be arranged in the injection molding tool in such a way that a movement of the at least two tool elements from the open position in a direction of the closed position is only permitted by the spacer element up to a cleaning position ... and a further movement of the at least two tool elements in the direction of the closed position is prevented by the spacer element”. Claim 1 further recites that, in the cleaning position, the at least two tool elements and the spacer element “form at least one section of an extended molding space for receiving a plasticized melt”.
Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114(II). Accordingly, claim 1 is interpreted as requiring a spacer element that is structurally capable of being arranged to permit movement of the at least two tool elements only up to the cleaning position and to prevent further movement into the closed position. The recitation “for receiving a plasticized melt” is interpreted as a statement of intended use. Prior art that discloses a structure capable of the recited arrangement meets the limitation, regardless of the purpose for which that structure is used.
Claim 1 recites that, in the cleaning position, the at least two tool elements and the spacer element “form at least one section of an extended molding space for receiving a plasticized melt”. Claim 3 similarly recites that “the extended molding space is formed by the cavity, the core, the neck ring and the spacer element”. For purposes of examination, this language is not interpreted as requiring the spacer element to bound, contact, or otherwise be wetted by the plasticized melt, and it is not interpreted as requiring the spacer element to be located at or adjacent to the molding space.
The applicant’s specification expressly contemplates that the spacer element may perform its blocking function at a location remote from the molding space and need not contact the melt. In lines 15-30 on page 4, the specification states that “it is understood that the spacer element does not necessarily have to come into contact with the plasticized melt”, and further states that where only a sealing element of the spacer element is arranged in the gap between the tool elements, a blocking element of the spacer element is “arranged in an area of the tool in which further movement of the tool elements towards each other can be prevented”, giving as an example an arrangement between the slide bars that drive the neck jaws. In lines 14-17 on page 8, the specification states that filling the molding space “does not necessarily take place in such a way that the entire extended molding space is filled with the melt”, and that whether the melt contacts the spacer elements “depends on how much melt is introduced into the extended molding space”.
Accordingly, any structure that arrests relative movement of the tool elements at a position between the open position and the closed position, such that the resulting enlarged space between the tool elements is available to receive plasticized melt, and that could be contacted by the melt if a sufficient amount were introduced into the molding space, is considered to form at least one section of an extended molding space within the meaning of claims 1 and 3.
Claims 5 and 6 recite that a gap is formed “by the spacer element” between identified tool elements. Consistent with the interpretation set forth above, this language is interpreted as requiring that the spacer element be the structure that causes the gap to exist and that determines its dimension. The language is not interpreted as requiring the spacer element to be received within the gap that it forms.
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, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0341814 (“Witz”) (cited in an IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Witz discloses an injection molding tool for producing at least one molded part in a molding space (injection mold 1100, forming part of an injection mold machine for molding PET preforms; see [0004] and [0132]-[0133] and Figures 14 and 14A),
wherein the injection molding tool has at least two tool elements which can be moved relative to one another between an open position and a closed position (the core plate 1103, the stripper plate 1117, and the cavity plate 1110 are supported on and movable relative to each other; see [0133] and [0177] and Figures 14, 27, and 28),
wherein in the closed position the molding space is at least partially enclosed by the at least two tool elements (in the standard molding configuration the mold cavity 1107 is defined by the cavity insert 1120 and gate insert 1129 retained in the cavity plate 1110, the mold core 1102 fitted into the core plate 1103, and the neck ring halves 1114a, 1114b; see [0136]-[0137], [0139], and [0177] and Figure 14A) and wherein in the open position a molded part produced in the molding space is removed from the injection molding tool (the stack is cycled to its open position in which the clamping force is released and the core and cavity plates are spread apart, and the finished parts are ejected as the stripper plate 1117 slides away from the core plate 1103; see [0177] and Figure 27),
wherein the injection molding tool has at least one spacer element, which can be arranged in the injection molding tool in such a way that a movement of the at least two tool elements from the open position in a direction of the closed position is only permitted by the spacer element up to a cleaning position which lies between the open position and the closed position and a further movement of the at least two tool elements in the direction of the closed position is prevented by the spacer element (the adaptive tonnage blocks 1113 of the cavity plate adjustment mechanism 2000; see [0146], [0165], and [0167] and Figures 14 and 22. Each block 1113 is received in a recess or aperture 2016 in the inward facing surface 2143 of the cavity plate 1110 and includes an engagement portion 2008 having an engagement surface 2023 that is movable between a retracted position spaced a first distance D1 from the surface 2143 and an extended position spaced a greater second distance D2 from that surface, in which extended position the engagement surface 2023 abuts the surface 2119 of the stripper plate 1117 and the distance between the opposing surfaces of the cavity plate 1110 and the stripper plate 1117 is thereby increased beyond that established by the regular tonnage blocks 1118; see [0167]-[0169] and Figures 24, 26A, and 26B),
wherein in the cleaning position the at least two tool elements and the spacer element form at least one section of an extended molding space for receiving a plasticized melt (Extension of the blocks 1113 increases the height H and the corresponding mold shut height S, and the mold is then closed into the alternate cleaning operational configuration in which an enlarged gap exists between the neck ring halves and the molding material injected during the cleaning cycle occupies the enlarged vents; see [0168]-[0169] and [0178]-[0179] and Figures 3D, 26B, and 28. In the vent cleaning configuration, the primary vent area 308 becomes part of the molding surface and is filled by the molding material 326; see [0083]-[0085]. As set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above, the recitation that the tool elements and the spacer element “form” a section of the extended molding space does not require the spacer element to contact the plasticized melt or to be located at the molding space. Figure 28 of Witz shows that the blocks 1113 could be contacted by plasticized melt if a sufficient amount were introduced into the neighboring mold cavities).
Regarding claim 2, Witz discloses that the spacer element is arranged in a gap between the two tool elements in the cleaning position (in the extended position, the engagement portion 2008 of the block 1113 spans and occupies the space between the inward facing surface 2143 of the cavity plate 1110 and the surface 2119 of the stripper plate 1117, with which it is in abutment; see [0168] and Figures 26B and 28).
Regarding claim 3, Witz discloses that the injection molding tool comprises as tool elements a cavity plate with at least one cavity (the cavity plate 1110, carrying the cavity insert 1120 and the adjacent gate insert 1129 retained by the cavity flange 1131; see [0137] and Figures 14A and 22), a core plate with at least one core (the core plate 1103, carrying the mold core 1102 retained by the lock ring 1104; see [0136] and Figures 14A and 15) and at least one neck ring (the neck ring halves 1114a, 1114b, which together form a neck ring associated with each mold stack 1111; see [0139] and Figures 14A and 17), the neck ring being arranged between the cavity plate and the core plate as viewed on a tool axis (the neck ring halves 1114a, 1114b are carried on the slide bars 1115a, 1115b supported on the wear plate 1119 and stripper plate 1117, between the core plate 1103 and the cavity plate 1110 along the axis X; see [0133], [0138]-[0139], and [0142] and Figures 14 and 14A),
the cavity plate, the core plate and the neck ring being movable relative to one another in such a way that in the open position the core is not arranged in the cavity, so that the molded part can be removed (see [0177] and Figure 27, in which the core and cavity plates are spread apart and the neck ring halves are moved laterally outwardly for ejection), in the closed position the core is arranged in the cavity, so that the molding space is formed by the cavity, the core and the neck ring (the mold cavity 1107; see [0136]-[0137] and [0177] and Figure 14A), and in the cleaning position the core is arranged at least partially in the cavity, so that the extended molding space is formed by the cavity, the core, the neck ring and the spacer element (in the alternate cleaning operational configuration, the mold stack is closed with the blocks 1113 extended, such that the core remains received in the cavity while the stack is held at the increased shut height with an enlarged gap between the neck ring halves; see [0178]-[0179] and Figure 28).
Regarding claim 5, Witz discloses that the neck ring is one of the at least two tool elements and the cavity plate with the cavity or the core plate with the core is another of the at least two tool elements, so that in the cleaning position a gap is formed by the spacer element between the neck ring on the one hand and the cavity or the core on the other hand (adjustment of the distance between the cavity plate 1110 and the stripper plate 1117 by the cavity plate adjustment mechanism 2000 allows the cavity flange 1131 to move longitudinally relative to the inclined surface of the neck ring halves 1114a, 1114b, and thereby allows the neck ring halves to move outwardly from the standard molding configuration to the vent cleaning configuration; see [0147], [0164], and [0178] and Figures 26A, 26B, and 28).
The recitation that the spacer element “preferably” has an opening for the core to pass through is exemplary and is not required, as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 6, Witz discloses that the neck ring has two neck jaws, and wherein one of the neck jaws is one of the at least two tool elements and the second neck jaw is another of the at least two tool elements (the neck ring halves 1114a, 1114b are fixedly attached to respective slide bars 1115a, 1115b and move with those slide bars in opposite reciprocating movements parallel to the axis Y, so that they may be moved towards each other or away from each other; see [0139] and [0162]-[0163] and Figures 14A, 17, and 18), so that in the cleaning position a gap is formed between the two neck jaws of the neck ring by the spacer element (extension of the adaptive tonnage blocks 1113 causes the cavity plate 1110 and the stripper plate 1117 to have an increased spacing apart from one another, which “provides lateral clearance permitting the neck ring halves 1114a, 1114b to be held spaced apart”; see [0178]. In the resulting cleaning configuration, an enlarged gap exists between the neck ring halves, and the molding material occupies the enlarged vents; see [0179] and Figures 3D and 28).
As set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above, the recitation that the gap is formed “by the spacer element” requires that the spacer element be the structure that causes the gap and determines its dimension. It does not require the spacer element to be received within the gap. Witz confirms that this is the relationship present in the disclosed apparatus, stating that the compressive clamping force acting through the inclined mating surfaces between the cavity flange 1131 and the neck ring halves 1114a, 1114b urges those halves transversely inwards, and that the relative positions of the neck ring halves “can be held at either the desired standard molding configuration or the vent cleaning configuration, which can be determined by the selection of the appropriate mold shut height S”. See [0142].
Regarding claim 12, Witz discloses that the tool elements have at least one recess corresponding to the spacer element, in which recess a portion of the spacer element is arranged in the cleaning position (each adaptive tonnage block 1113 is received in a respective recess or aperture 2016 in the inward surface 2143 of the cavity plate 1110, and the driving portion 2006 of the block is received within that aperture 2016 and bears against the adjacent surface of the cavity plate in both the retracted and extended positions; see [0167] and [0170] and Figures 23C, 24, 26A, and 26B).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2002/0185766 (“Daihisa”).
Regarding claim 11, Witz does not disclose that the spacer element is designed such that it is held in the cleaning position by a magnetic force between the tool elements. In Witz, the spacer element is held in position by mechanical fasteners (a pair of spaced pin members 2011 secure the adaptive tonnage blocks 1113 to the cavity plate 1110, the pin members 2011 having bottom threaded end portions 2014 that pass through the engagement portion 2008, the separation block 2018, and the driving portion 2006 and are received in corresponding threaded apertures in the cavity plate 1110; see [0172] and Figures 23C, 24, and 25).
Daihisa is directed to an injection mold comprising a movable mold and an immovable mold (see [0001]). A holding portion 311 is provided in a midsection of a cavity surface 304b of the immovable mold 303, shaped to have a ring-shaped insert 310 fitted to and properly positioned in the cavity 304, and a magnet 312 is attached at a bottom of the holding portion 311 for attracting and holding the insert 310 (see [0106] and Figures 14, 15A, and 15B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have held the adaptive tonnage block 1113 of Witz in position by a magnetic force, as taught by Daihisa, in place of the mechanical pin members 2011 of Witz, if desired. Magnetic retention and mechanical fasteners are art-recognized alternatives for securing a component in position within an injection mold, and the substitution of the one for the other is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 8 and 10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 requires that the spacer element be designed such that a first section of the spacer element is arranged, in the cleaning position, in a gap between the neck ring on the one hand and the cavity or the core on the other hand, and that a second section of the spacer element is arranged in a gap between the neck jaws of the neck ring. Claim 8 requires that, in the cleaning position, a first spacer element or a first section of the spacer element be arranged in a first end section of the gap between the neck jaws and that a second spacer element or a second section be arranged in an opposite second end section of that gap. Each of these claims therefore requires that a portion of the spacer element itself be received within the gap between the neck jaws.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest a spacer element having a section that is received in the gap between the neck jaws of a neck ring. In Witz, the separation of the neck ring halves 1114a, 1114b is achieved indirectly, by increasing the mold shut height so as to provide lateral clearance permitting the halves to be held spaced apart, and no structure is interposed between the halves (see [0142] and [0178]-[0179] of Witz). The same approach is taken in US 2018/0050476 A1 (“Kmoch”), in which the spacer 598 acts on a stop member 560 located behind the core plate 512 in order to increase the shut height, and the split mold insert halves 116, 118 separate only as a consequence of the introduction of the gap G2 between the split mold insert 114 and the cavity insert 106 (see [0114]-[0115] and [0122] of Kmoch). The remaining art, including JP 2009-056633 (“Endo”) (cited in an IDS), JP H01-128439 (“Koga”) (cited in a third-party submission), and US 2011/0033984 (“Tsuchida”) (cited in an IDS), interposes a consumable cleaning plate, sheet, or lead frame between opposed mold halves along the parting line, and does not place any portion of that member between the two halves of a split neck ring, as claimed.
Claims 9 and 10 contain allowable subject matter based on their dependency from claims 7 and 8, respectively.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights