DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that the combination of references does not teach that the control unit control the second motor to rotate the plunger at a the third speed and rotate the plunger at a fourth speed during the molding process and the third speed being higher than the fourth speed. First, the term “molding process” is broad and would reasonably encompass virtually the entire use of the apparatus of Maruyama: metering, plasticization, injection, holding, ejection, changeover, etc. Further, Maruyama explicitly states that plunger (252) is driven by motor (253), while unlabeled, Maruyama clearly depicts a lead screw type linear actuator wherein a threaded portion of the rod of (252) is intermeshed with a threaded nut, the nut is rotated to actuate linear motion to the plunger (252). This configuration would require the plunger be rotated during linear reciprocal motion as it is integral to the threaded portion of the rod. Maruyama notes that speed of retraction (and therefore speed of rotation given how the linear movement in actuated as explained above) is a results effective variable on residual material entrapment and injection amount [0048]. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the rotational speed of the plunger to be a third speed during reciprocal movement and fourth speed during the molding processing, as suggested by Maruyama, in order to prevent material entrapment and insufficient injection amount. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner has specifically outlined the passages relied upon as disclosure of results effective variables, specifically 0048 of Maruyama. However, in the case of the 2 screw speeds this feature is also disclosed by Kamiguchi.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 2022/0024097) in view of Klaus (US 6200127) and Kamiguchi (EP 0328693).
As to claim 1, Maruyama a material dispensing device comprising: a plasticization unit including a screw (130) and a heater (170) and configured to generate a shaping material by plasticizing at least a part of a material [0025, Fig 2]; a first motor configured to rotate the screw (122), a cylinder (251) coupled to a flow path configured to allow the shaping material to flow and extending in a direction intersecting a longitudinal direction of the flow path (146, 180) [0041, Fig 5]; a plunger (252) provided in the cylinder [Fig 5, 0041]; a second motor (253) configured to drive the plunger [0051, Fig 2]; and a control unit (500) configured to control the plasticization unit and the first and second motors [0041, 0022, 0023, 0027, 0036], Maruyama teaches the control unit performs circulating the shaping material generated by plasticizing the material through the flow path (as the speed of delivery is adjusted based on desired pressure) [0048] by rotating the screw in a state in which a tip of the plunger on a flow path side is located in the flow path [0048, 0041-0043]. Maruyama teaches both the screw speed and the advancement of the plunger are controlled by the control unit [0027, 0041, Fig 5, 9, 11, 12] which would have the tip be fully retracted during some portion of the processing of the 1rst material which is before the shaping material flows in the flow path.
Maruyama does not explicitly state this sequence is activated upon change over from one material to another for cleaning.
Klaus teaches an injection molding machine wherein the when materials are switched the plunger is “wiped clean” by rotating the entirety of the tapered portion of the plunder within the flow path as the new material is delivered in order to fully purge the old material that degrades part quality [col 5 line 34-52, col 6 line 30-48]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Maruyama and had the entirety of the tapered portion of the flow plunger rotate within the flow path while material was delivered from the rotating screw as part of cleaning process as well as part of normal, as suggested by Maruyama, in order to fully purge the old material that degrades part quality/prevent .
The combination of Maruyama and Klaus teach the cleaning processing as explained above and Maruyama teaches plunger includes a tapered portion in which a width decreases toward the flow path, the tip is implemented by the tapered portion (252). Maruyama teaches the advancement and retraction of the plunger, in other words the degree to which it is within the flow path, I controlled based on desired pressure and flow rate [0042, 0048], hence the position of the plunger in the flow path is a results effective variable. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the cleaning process such that the plunger was advanced such the entire tip was within the flow path, as suggested by Maruyama, as plunger position was known to influence pressure and flow rate.
Maruyama explicitly states that plunger (252) is driven by motor (253), while unlabeled, Maruyama clearly depicts a lead screw type linear actuator wherein a threaded portion of the rod of (252) is intermeshed with a threaded nut, the nut is rotated to actuate linear motion to the plunger (252). This configuration would require the plunger be rotated as it is integral to the threaded portion of the rod. The examiner notes that Drawings do constitute prior art, “it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification” see MPEP 2125.
PNG
media_image1.png
783
1015
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Maruyama notes that speed of retraction (and therefore speed of rotation given how the linear movement in actuated as explained above) is a results effective variable on residual material entrapment and injection amount [0048]. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the rotational speed of the plunger to be a third speed during reciprocal movement and fourth speed during the molding processing, as suggested by Maruyama, in order to prevent material entrapment and insufficient injection amount.
While the combination of Maruyama and Klaus disclose the control unit controls the speed of the screw and the movement of the plunger, it does not explicitly state that screw speed is faster during the cleaning process than the moulding process.
Kamiguchi teaches a method for unclogging an injection unit [Abstract], wherein when a clog is detected, torque (ie force of rotation speed, in other words rotation is accelerated) is increased in order to dislodge the clog [Bottom of page 3, top of page 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Maruyama and driven the screw at a first speed and at a second, higher speed, as suggested by Kamiguchi, in order to dislodge undesired residual material.
Furthermore, Maruyama teaches the rotation of the drive and therefore the screw is a results effective variable on pressure, flow rate, and, ultimately, part quality [0048]. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the rotational speed of the screw as suggested by Maruyama, in order to obtain the desired pressure, flow rate and part quality.
As to claim 3-5, Maruyama teaches control unit performs plunger movement processing of advancing and retracting the plunger during the melt circulation period [0041-0043, 0022, 0023, 0027, 0036].
Klaus teaches an injection molding machine wherein the when materials are switched the plunger is “wiped clean” by rotating within the flow path as the new material is delivered in order to fully purge the old material that degrades part quality [col 5 line 34-52, col 6 line 30-48]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Maruyama and had the tip of the flow plunger rotate within the flow path while material was delivered from the rotating screw as part of cleaning, as suggested by Klaus, in order to fully purge the old material that degrade part quality.
As to claim 4, Maruyama does not explicitly state the control unit rotates the plunger in the state in which the tip is located in the flow path.
Klaus teaches an injection molding machine wherein the when materials are switched the plunger is “wiped clean” by rotating within the flow path as the new material is delivered in order to fully purge the old material that degrades part quality [col 5 line 34-52, col 6 line 30-48]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Maruyama and had the tip of the flow plunger rotate within the flow path while material was delivered from the rotating screw as part of cleaning process, as suggested by Maruyama, in order to fully purge the old material that degrades part quality.
As to claim 5, Maruyama does not explicitly state the control unit rotates the plunger normally and reversely tip is located in the flow path.
Klaus teaches an injection molding machine wherein the when materials are switched the plunger is “wiped clean” by rotating the plunger reversely within the flow path as the new material is delivered in order to fully purge the old material that degrades part quality [col 5 line 34-52, col 6 line 30-48]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Maruyama and had the tip of the flow plunger rotate normally and reversely within the flow path while material was delivered from the rotating screw as part of cleaning process, as suggested by Maruyama, in order to fully purge the old material that degrades part quality.
As to claim 6, As explained above with the Drawing of Fig 2, the advancing and retracting would rotate the plunger due to the type of linear actuator utilized in Maruyama including normally (advancing) and reversely (retracting or vice versa), this would include rotation within the flow path would the plunger was fully extended.
As to claim 9, Maruyama does not explicitly state a ratio of a rotational speed of the screw to a rotational speed of the plunger is 3.6 or more and 5.6 or less.
However, Maruyama teaches the rotation of the drive and therefore the screw is a results effective variable on pressure, flow rate, and, ultimately, part quality [0048]. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the rotational speed of the screw to the exact values of 3.6-5.6 that of the plunger as suggested by Maruyama, in order to obtain the desired pressure, flow rate and part quality.
As to claim 10, Maruyama teaches an injection molding apparatus comprising: the material dispensing device according to claim 1; and a mold clamping unit configured to open and close a mold unit including a fixed mold and a movable mold [0045-0047, 0022, 0023].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 2022/0024097) in view of Klaus (US 6200127) and Kamiguchi (EP 0328693), as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, in further view of Mille (US 3079638).
As to claim 7,Maruyama does not explicitly state one of a spiral groove and an emboss is formed in the tip.
Mille demonstrates an injection apparatus for a plastic resin material wherein the plunger phrased as a piston is equipped with a spiral groove [Fig 4, 5, 7, col 4 line 35-42] as this spiral groove prevents old material from excessively accumulating in the gap between the piston and the cylinder [col 5 line 1-45]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Maruyama and had the plunger tip have a spiral groove, as suggested by Mille, in order to prevent old material from excessively accumulating in the gap between the piston and the cylinder.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 2022/0024097) in view of Klaus (US 6200127) and Kamiguchi (EP 0328693), as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, in further view of Mille (US 3079638) and Neuville (US 3584342).
As to claim 7,Maruyama does not explicitly state one of a spiral groove and an emboss is formed in the tip.
Mille demonstrates an injection apparatus for a plastic resin material wherein the plunger phrased as a piston is equipped with a spiral groove [Fig 4, 5, 7, col 4 line 35-42] as this spiral groove prevents old material from excessively accumulating in the gap between the piston and the cylinder [col 5 line 1-45]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Maruyama and had the plunger tip have a spiral groove, as suggested by Mille, in order to prevent old material from excessively accumulating in the gap between the piston and the cylinder.
Neuville teaches a plasticating device wherein an axial tip (14) and other areas of the flow path can be equipped with grooves or embossments [col 3 line 15-23]; this design prevents thermal degradation [col 1 line 55-70]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Maruyama and equipped the plunger tip with embossments, as suggested by Neuville, as grooves or embossments were known to be added as desired by the designer and still result in prevention of thermal degradation.
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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 571-272-1234. 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.
ARMAND MELENDEZ
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759