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 with respect to claims 1-5, 7-9, 21, 23 & 25-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. All arguments are drawn to the primary prior art of Smith, and the validity for combining Smith with other arts.
Arguments drawn to the amended claims will be discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 sections.
Independent claims 1, 9 & 21 have been amended, partly from canceled claim elements marked for a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection or claim objections.
The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, claim objections, and specification objections are withdrawn, as they have been corrected by either amendment or cancellation.
The amendments to claims 1-5, 7-9, 21, 23 & 25-27 and the cancellation of claims 6, 10-12, 22 & 24 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors.
In claim 1, in lines 7-8, the second mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold and the third component disposed in the first mold; however, in line 11, the second mold cavity is altered as it contains a first component at the time the second mixture is injected. It is suggested to amend line 11 for clarity.
In claim 28, line 1, the claim should have a transitional phrase after the preamble such as ‘wherein’.
In claim 28, line 2, suggest amending to “a bottom surface .
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 3, 4, 21, 23 & 25-28 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.
Regarding claim 3, lines 5-6, before the first partition has been removed, ‘the second sub-cavity of the second mold cavity should be defined by the first mold, the second mold, third , and the first partition.’ It is unclear if citing the first component to partially define the second sub-cavity is a typographical error or not. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, the claim cites the second mold cavity consists of a first, second, and third sub-cavity. Claim 1 cites the second mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold and the third component disposed in the first mold.
However, claim 4 does not cite any of the three sub-cavities being defined by the third component. It is unclear how the three sub-cavities are not defined by the third component with the presence of only two partitions; and unclear which sub-cavities are intended to contact the third component, if any. Claim 1 cites that the third component and a second component are in contact.
Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the three sub-cavities will be interpreted to be additionally defined by the third component disposed in the first mold.
Regarding claim 21, line 17, it is unclear the sub-cavity the second mixture is injected. Therefore, claim 21 is indefinite. It is understood by the Examiner that the second mixture should be injected into the first sub-cavity, and will be examined accordingly.
For clarity, it is suggested to amend line 17 to “into the first sub-cavity of the second mold cavity”, and amend line 19 to “into the second sub-cavity of the second mold cavity”. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claim will be examined accordingly.
It is understood by the Examiner that the method step of lines 17-18 should be cited before the step of lines 14-16; and the step in line 22 should be cited before the step in lines 20-21.
Claims 23 & 25-28 are rejected as they are dependent to claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, lines 5-7 cite “the second sub-cavity of the second mold cavity is defined by the first component, the second mold and the second component.” It is unclear how the second mold could define the second sub-cavity, and therefore the claim is indefinite. The second sub-cavity is understood by the Examiner to be ‘defined by the first component, the third mold , and the second partition’, and will be examined accordingly.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Mares (US4275030A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
9. An injection molding method, comprising: providing a molding device including a first mold, a second mold over the first mold and a mold cavity defined by the first mold and the second mold; dividing the mold cavity into a first sub-cavity and a second sub-cavity by a first partition and a second partition, wherein the first partition and the second partition are removable, and the first sub-cavity of the mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold and the first partition, and the second sub-cavity of the mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold and the second partition; injecting a first mixture into the first sub-cavity through a first feeding port; forming a first component from the first mixture; injecting a second mixture into the second sub-cavity through a second feeding port; forming a second component from the second mixture; removing the first partition from the mold cavity, wherein before removing the first partition from the mold cavity, the first component is at least partially in contact with the first partition; removing the second partition from the mold cavity, wherein before removing the second partition from the mold cavity, the second component is at least partially in contact with the second partition, injecting a third mixture into a third sub-cavity of the mold cavity through a third feeding port, wherein the third sub-cavity of the mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold, the first component and the second component; and forming a third component from the third mixture, wherein the third component is at least partially in contact with the first component and the second component, and wherein the second component is separated from the first component, and the first component and the second component have different physical properties.
With respect to claim 9, the prior art of Mares teaches an injection molding method, comprising: providing a molding device including a first lower mold (Fig. 4, not pictured), a second upper mold (Fig. 4, item 4) over the first mold and a mold cavity (Fig. 4, combined space of items 11, 12 & 13) defined by the first mold and the second mold [Col. 2, lines 6-21]; dividing the mold cavity into a first sub-cavity (Fig. 4, item 11) and a second sub-cavity (Fig. 4, item 12) by a first partition (Fig. 4, item 16) and a second partition (Fig. 4, item 17), wherein the first partition and the second partition are removable [Col. 2, lines 39-47], and the first sub-cavity of the mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold and the first partition, and the second sub-cavity of the mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold and the second partition [Col. 2, lines 35-38]; injecting a first mixture into the first sub-cavity through a first feeding port (Fig. 4, item 7); forming a first component from the first mixture; injecting a second mixture into the second sub-cavity through a second feeding port (Fig. 4, item 8); forming a second component from the second mixture; removing the first partition from the mold cavity, wherein before removing the first partition from the mold cavity, the first component is at least partially in contact with the first partition; removing the second partition from the mold cavity, wherein before removing the second partition from the mold cavity, the second component is at least partially in contact with the second partition [Col. 2, lines 35-38], injecting a third mixture into a third sub-cavity (Fig. 4, item 13) of the mold cavity through a third feeding port (Fig. 4, item 9), wherein the third sub-cavity of the mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold, the first component and the second component; and forming a third component from the third mixture, wherein the third component is at least partially in contact with the first component and the second component, and wherein the second component is separated from the first component [Col. 2, lines 39-47], and the first component and the second component have different physical properties [Col. 1, lines 30-34].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 non-obviousness.
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 1-5, 21, 23 & 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacDonald (US20080012176A1), in view of Mares (US4275030A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. An injection molding method, comprising: providing a molding device including a first mold, a third mold over the first mold and a first mold cavity defined by the first mold and the third mold; injecting a third mixture into the first mold cavity defined by the first mold and the third mold through a third feeding port disposed at the third mold; forming a third component from the third mixture; replacing the third mold by a second mold, wherein a second mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold and the third component disposed in the first mold; injecting a first mixture into the second mold cavity through a first feeding port; forming a first component from the first mixture; injecting a second mixture into the second mold cavity through a second feeding port; and forming a second component from the second mixture, wherein the second component is at least partially in contact with the third component, and the third component and the second component have different physical properties.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of MacDonald teaches an injection molding method, comprising: providing a molding station (Fig. 1A, item 110) including a first mold (Fig. 1A, item 106 or 108), a third mold (Fig. 1A, item 114) over the first mold and a first mold cavity defined by the first mold and the third mold [0028, 0029]; injecting a third mixture into the first mold cavity defined by the first mold and the third mold through a third feeding port disposed at the third mold; forming a third component (Fig. 1B, item 130) from the third mixture [0026, 0029]; and replacing the third mold by a second mold (Fig. 1A, item 120) by transferring a first mold half (Fig. 1A, item 106 or 108) from the molding station (Fig. 1A, item 110) to the overmolding station (Fig. 1A, item 112; [0029]), wherein a second mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold and the third component disposed in the first mold [0030].
MacDonald is silent on teaching the third mold and the second mold being physically ‘over’ the first mold. MacDonald teaches the mold halves meet alongside each other in a horizontally closing direction, not a vertical direction.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that orientation of the merging mold halves would have no effect on the article or the operation of the mold, and molding orientations would prima facie obviously be selected based on which compatible molding system is available for operation.
MacDonald teaches injecting a first mixture into the second mold cavity through a first feeding port [0030]; forming a first component from the first mixture, which bonds with the third component to form an overmolded article (Fig. 1B, item 132; [0030]).
MacDonald is silent on injecting a second mixture into the second mold cavity through a second feeding port at the overmolding station.
However, the prior art of Mares teaches a mold half comprising a plurality of nozzles wherein individual mixtures can be injected to form a plurality of sub-divided components within a mold cavity [Col. 2, lines 6-26]. Mares teaches each molded component can have different physical properties [Col. 1, lines 13-16].
Mares teaches the process for molding into three sub-cavities from three nozzles on a mold half, with the mold cavity divided into sub-cavities via two independently-controllable partitions [Col. 2, lines 6-26].
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing, and within the person’s knowledge and ability, to modify the molding process and injecting mold half of Mares wherein the mold half comprises a larger or smaller number of sub-cavities and partitions (e.g., 2 sub-cavities & 1 partition, or 4 sub-cavities & 3 partitions) to mold a varied number of components.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the multi-nozzle, multi-sub-cavity molding half and its means of operation to form multiple components, taught by Mares, in place of the second mold (Fig. 1A, item 120) comprising a single nozzle, taught by MacDonald, to predictably obtain a modified process for producing multiple components of different materials over-molded onto a component held within the mold cavity.
2. The injection molding method of Claim 1, further comprising: dividing the second mold cavity into a first sub-cavity and a second sub-cavity by a first partition, wherein the first partition is removable, and the first sub-cavity of the second mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold and the first partition.
With respect to claim 2, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Mares teaches the second mold cavity could be divided into a first sub-cavity (Fig. 4, item 11) and a second sub-cavity (Fig. 4, item 12, and modified to remove the center sub-cavity item 13) by a first partition (Fig. 4, item 16); wherein the first partition is removable [Col. 2, lines 31-47], and in the modified process of MacDonald, in view of Mares, the first sub-cavity of the second mold cavity could be defined by the first mold, the second mold and the first partition.
3. The injection molding method of Claim 2, further comprising: removing the first partition from the second mold cavity before injecting the second mixture into the second sub-cavity of the second mold cavity, wherein before removing the first partition from the mold cavity, the first component is at least partially in contact with the first partition, and the second sub-cavity of the second mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold, third , and the first partition.
With respect to claim 3, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, Mares teaches removing the first partition from the second mold cavity before injecting the second mixture into the (adjacent) second sub-cavity of the second mold cavity [Col. 2, lines 44-47], wherein before removing the first partition from the mold cavity, the first component is at least partially in contact with the first partition [Col. 2, lines 31-47], with the second sub-cavity of the second mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold, the third component, and the first partition.
Mares teaches after a molded component is formed in a sub-cavity, the partition can be removed before a different material is injected in an adjacent sub-cavity to allow the contact welding of the adjacent components [Col. 2, lines 34-47].
4. The injection molding method of Claim 1, further comprising: dividing the second mold cavity into a first sub-cavity, a second sub-cavity and a third sub-cavity by a first partition and a second partition, wherein the first partition and the second partition are removable, the first sub-cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold and the first partition, and the second sub-cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold and the second partition; removing the first partition from the second mold cavity before injecting the second mixture into the second sub-cavity of the mold cavity, wherein before removing the first partition from the mold cavity, the first component is at least partially in contact with the first partition; removing the second partition from the second mold cavity after the injecting the second mixture into the second sub-cavity of the mold cavity; and injecting a fourth mixture through a fourth feeding port into the third sub-cavity defined by the first mold, the second mold and the second component.
With respect to claim 4, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, the modified process of MacDonald, in view of Mares, can teach the process for molding into three sub-cavities from three nozzles with two independently-controllable partitions on a mold half, for over-molding three components into a mold cavity via containing the third component. This predictably results in a molded article having a base ‘third component’ overcoated with three distinct components.
Mares teaches this specific embodiment for overmolding three components, with the first two components formed on the outer sub-cavities, and the last component formed after the two partitions have been removed [Claim 2].
In this embodiment, Mares teaches dividing the second mold cavity into a first sub-cavity (Fig. 4, item 11), a second sub-cavity (Fig. 4, item 12) and a third sub-cavity (Fig. 4, item 13) by a first partition (Fig. 4, item 16) and a second partition (Fig. 4, item 17), and wherein the first partition and the second partition are removable [Col. 2, lines 39-47].
The modified molding process of MacDonald, in view of Mares, would therefore teach the first sub-cavity is defined by the first mold/third component, the second mold and the first partition, and the second sub-cavity is defined by the first mold/third component, the second mold and the second partition.
Mares teaches the first partition would be removed from the second mold cavity before injecting the second mixture into the second sub-cavity of the mold cavity, as Mares teaches the partition is removed [Col. 2. lines 44-47], wherein before removing the first partition from the mold cavity, the first component is at least partially in contact with the first partition [Col. 2, lines 18-20]; removing the second partition from the second mold cavity after the injecting the second mixture into the second sub-cavity of the mold cavity; and injecting a fourth mixture through a fourth feeding port into the third sub-cavity defined by the first mold, the second mold and the second component [Col. 2, lines 39-47].
5. The injection molding method of Claim 1, further comprising: controlling the first mixture to flow through the first feeding port and the second mixture to flow through the second feeding port.
With respect to claim 5, MacDonald teaches controlling the first mixture to flow through the first feeding port and a second mixture to flow through a second feeding port [0015].
Mares is silent on controls for the molding system.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing, and within the person’s knowledge and ability, to modify the controls for the combined molding process of MacDonald, in view of Mares. The overmold nozzles and timing controls would be a duplication of the injection steps taught by MacDonald.
For the overmolding steps, timing sequencing and partition controls would prima facie require simple control programs known to a person of ordinary skill in the art to meet the process steps described by Mares [Claim 1].
21. An injection molding method, comprising: providing a first molding device including a first mold, a second mold over the first mold and a first mold cavity defined by the first mold and the second mold; injecting a first mixture into the first mold cavity through a first feeding port; forming a first component from the first mixture; providing a second molding device including the first mold, a third mold over the first mold and a second mold cavity defined by the third mold and the first component disposed in the first mold; dividing the second mold cavity into a first sub-cavity, a second sub-cavity and a third sub-cavity by a first partition and a second partition, wherein the first partition and the second partition are removable, the first sub-cavity is defined by the first component, the third mold and the first partition, and the second sub-cavity is defined by the first component, the third mold and the second partition; removing the first partition from the second mold cavity, wherein before removing the first partition from the second mold cavity, the first component is at least partially in contact with the first partition; injecting a second mixture into the second mold cavity through a second feeding port; forming a second component from the second mixture; injecting a third mixture into the second mold cavity through a third feeding port; removing the second partition from the second mold cavity after injecting the third mixture into the second sub-cavity of the second mold cavity; forming a third component from the third mixture, and injecting a fourth mixture through a fourth feeding port into the third sub-cavity defined by the first component, the third mold and the third component, wherein the second component is at least partially in contact with the third component, and the first component is at least partially in contact with the second component and the third component, wherein the first component, the second component and the third component have different physical properties.
With respect to claim 21, the prior art of MacDonald teaches injection molding method, comprising: providing a first molding station (Fig. 1A, item 110) including a first mold (Fig. 1A, item 106 or 108), a second mold (Fig. 1A, item 114) over the first mold and a first mold cavity defined by the first mold and the second mold [0028, 0029]; injecting a first mixture into the first mold cavity through a first feeding port; forming a first component (Fig. 1B, item 130) from the first mixture [0026, 0029]; and replacing the second mold by a third mold (Fig. 1A, item 120) by transferring a first mold half (Fig. 1A, item 106 or 108) from the molding station (Fig. 1A, item 110) to the overmolding station (Fig. 1A, item 112; [0029]), wherein a second mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the third mold and the first component disposed in the first mold [0030].
MacDonald is silent on teaching the second or third molds being physically ‘over’ the first mold. MacDonald teaches the mold halves meet alongside each other in a horizontally closing direction, not a vertical direction.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that orientation of the merging mold halves would have no effect on the article or the operation of the mold, and molding orientations would prima facie obviously be selected based on which compatible molding system is available for operation.
MacDonald teaches injecting a mixture into the second mold cavity through a first feeding port [0030]; forming a overmolding component which bonds with the first component to form an overmolded article (Fig. 1B, item 132; [0030]).
MacDonald is silent on injecting a plurality of mixtures into the second mold cavity through a plurality of feeding port at the overmolding station.
However, the prior art of Mares teaches a mold half comprising a plurality of nozzles wherein individual mixtures can be injected to form a plurality of sub-divided components within a mold cavity [Col. 2, lines 6-26]. Mares teaches each molded component can have different physical properties [Col. 1, lines 13-16].
Mares teaches the process for molding into three sub-cavities from three nozzles on a mold half, with the mold cavity divided into sub-cavities via two independently-controllable partitions [Col. 2, lines 6-26].
Mares teaches an injection molding method, comprising: providing a molding device including a upper mold (Fig. 4, item 5), a lower mold (item 4, not pictured) over the first mold and a mold cavity (Fig. 4, combined space of items 11, 12 & 13) defined by the first mold and the second mold [Col. 2, lines 6-21]; dividing the mold cavity into a first sub-cavity (Fig. 4, item 11) and a second sub-cavity (Fig. 4, item 12) by a first partition (Fig. 4, item 16) and a second partition (Fig. 4, item 17), wherein the first partition and the second partition are removable [Col. 2, lines 39-47], and the first sub-cavity of the mold cavity is defined by the two mold halves and the first partition, and the second sub-cavity of the mold cavity is defined by the two mold halves and the second partition [Col. 2, lines 35-38]; injecting a second mixture into the second mold cavity through a second feeding port (Fig. 4, item 7); forming a second component from the second mixture; removing the first partition from the second mold cavity, and wherein before removing the first partition from the second mold cavity, the first component is at least partially in contact with the first partition [Col. 2, lines 35-38].
An embodiment of Mares teaches that the two outer sub-cavities are filled first to form components, and then the two partitions are removed to inject a mixture into the middle sub-cavity to form the last component [Claim 2].
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing try the few options of filling the three sub-cavities in any order desired, based on the materials being injected or through trial-and-error optimization, while following the Mares teaching of removing a partition after a contacting component has formed, to predictably result in a similar four-component article via selectable orders of material injection.
From this obviousness rationale, Mares could teach injecting a third mixture into the second mold cavity (Fig. 4, item 13) through a third feeding port (Fig. 4, item 9); forming a third component from the third mixture; removing the second partition from the second mold cavity after injecting the third mixture into the second sub-cavity of the second mold cavity [Col. 2, lines 35-38]; and injecting a fourth mixture through a fourth feeding port (Fig. 4, item 8) into the third sub-cavity (Fig. 4, item 12) defined by the first component, the third mold and the third component, wherein the second component is at least partially in contact with the third component.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the three-nozzle, three-sub-cavity molding half and its means of operation to form three overmolding components, taught by Mares, in place of the second mold (Fig. 1A, item 120) comprising a single nozzle, taught by MacDonald, to predictably obtain a desired product from a modified process for producing three components of different materials over-molded onto a component held within the mold cavity.
From this substitution, it would be prima facie obvious that the first component in the first mold from MacDonald would at least partially contact with the overmolded second and third components from the process of Mares.
23. The injection molding method of Claim 21, further comprising: removing the first partition from the second mold cavity before injecting the third mixture into the second sub-cavity of the second mold cavity, wherein before removing the first partition from the second mold cavity, the second component is at least partially in contact with the first partition, and the second sub-cavity of the second mold cavity is defined by the first component, the third mold , and the second partition.
With respect to claim 23, as set forth in the rejection of claim 21, MacDonald, in view of Mares, teaches the second mold cavity containing a first component, wherein the second mold cavity is divided into first, second, and third sub-cavities, which are separated by first and second partitions.
Mares teaches partitions can be removed from the mold cavity after an injected mixture has set to form a component [Claim 1-(1)], then the next mixture for the adjacent cavity will be injected once the partition is removed and exposes the formed neighboring component [Claim 1-(2&3)]. When the two components are formed, they are bonded together and to the first component onto which they were overmolded [Claim 1-(1)].
An embodiment of Mares teaches that the two outer sub-cavities are filled first to form components, and then the two partitions are removed to inject a mixture into the middle sub-cavity to form the last component [Claim 2].
However, as set forth in the rejection of claim 21, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing try the few options of filling the three sub-cavities in any order desired, based on the materials being injected or through trial-and-error optimization, while following the Mares teaching of removing a partition after a contacting component has formed, to predictably result in a similar four-component article via selectable orders of material injection.
This change of injection orders could prima facie obviously result in the second sub-cavity of the second mold cavity being defined by the first component, the third mold, the second component, and the second partition.
25. The injection molding method of Claim 21, further comprising: controlling the second mixture to flow through the second feeding port and the third mixture to flow through the third feeding port.
With respect to claim 25, MacDonald teaches controlling the second mixture to flow through the second feeding port and a third mixture to flow through a third feeding port [0015].
Mares is silent on controls for the molding system.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing, and within the person’s knowledge and ability, to modify the controls for the combined molding process of MacDonald, in view of Mares. The overmold nozzles and timing controls would be a duplication of the injection steps taught by MacDonald.
For the overmolding steps, timing sequencing and partition controls would prima facie require simple control programs known to a person of ordinary skill in the art to meet the process steps described by Mares [Claim 1].
28. The injection molding method of Claim 21, the first component is in contact with bottoms of the second component and the third component.
With respect to claim 28, as set forth in the rejection of claim 21, the molding process of MacDonald, with a substituted overmolding process and mold half of Mares (Fig. 4) in place of the MacDonald overmolding mold half (Fig. 1A, item 120), prima facie obviously teaches the first component would be in contact with bottoms of the second component and the third component because the first component is present in the section of the mold cavity away from the three overmolding nozzles and the three mixtures would injected into the three sub-cavities above the first component.
Claims {7-8} & {26-27} are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacDonald (US20080012176A1), in view of Mares (US4275030A), as set forth in the rejection of claims {1} & {21}, respectively, and further in view of Ichiki (US20200398464A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
7. The injection molding method of Claim 1, wherein a central part of the first component undergoes a higher degree of physical foaming than a peripheral part of the first component during the forming of the first component from the first mixture.
With respect to claim 7, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, MacDonald, in view of Mares, teaches a three-component molding process capable of bonding three different material types to form a product.
MacDonald, in view of Mares, is silent on a central part of the first component undergoing a higher degree of physical foaming than a peripheral part of the first component during the forming of the first component from the first mixture.
However, the prior art of Ichiki teaches a foam molding method wherein a molding material is injected into a mold (Fig. 8a), the material outer layers form a hardened skin, the mold is opened to allow expansion of the article (Fig. 8b), producing a foamed inner section of the molded article [0021, 0060-0066]. Ichiki teaches this type of foamed article would provide several advantages, such as excellent shock resistance and inhibition from swelling [0013], over other products.
If advantages of reduced weight, excellent shock resistance and inhibition from swelling were desired for a first component in the molding process of MacDonald, in view of Mares, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the foam molding method and equipment of Ichiki to form a foamed first component in place of the non-foamed first component in the three component molding process of MacDonald, in view of Mares. This modification would predictably result in a process for forming a first component having a foamed inner section and a denser outer skin, bonded to the other two components of the molded article.
8. The injection molding method of Claim 1, wherein each of the first mixture and the second mixture includes a physical blowing agent and is foamed or slightly foamed.
With respect to claim 8, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, MacDonald, in view of Mares, teaches a three-component molding process capable of bonding three different material types to form a product.
MacDonald, in view of Mares, is silent on each of the first mixture and the second mixture including a physical blowing agent and being foamed or slightly foamed.
However, the prior art of Ichiki teaches a foam molding method wherein a molding material is injected into a mold (Fig. 8a), the material outer layers form a hardened skin, the mold is opened to allow expansion of the article (Fig. 8b), producing a foamed inner section of the molded article [0021, 0060-0066]. Ichiki teaches this type of foamed article would provide several advantages, such as excellent shock resistance and inhibition from swelling [0013], over other products.
If advantages of reduced weight, excellent shock resistance and inhibition from swelling were desired for a first component in the molding process of MacDonald, in view of Mares, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the foam molding method and equipment of Ichiki to produce foaming first and second mixtures in place of the non-foamed first and second mixtures used in the three component molding process of MacDonald, in view of Mares. This modification would predictably result in a process for forming a molded product having first and second components with foamed inner sections bonded to the third component of the molded article.
26. The injection molding method of Claim 21, wherein a central part of the second component undergoes a higher degree of physical foaming than a peripheral part of the second component during the forming of the second component from the second mixture.
With respect to claim 26, as set forth in the rejection of claim 21, MacDonald, in view of Mares, teaches a four-component molding process capable of bonding four different material types to form a product.
MacDonald, in view of Mares, is silent on a central part of the second component undergoing a higher degree of physical foaming than a peripheral part of the first component during the forming of the second component from the second mixture.
However, the prior art of Ichiki teaches a foam molding method wherein a molding material is injected into a mold (Fig. 8a), the material outer layers form a hardened skin, the mold is opened to allow expansion of the article (Fig. 8b), producing a foamed inner section of the molded article [0021, 0060-0066]. Ichiki teaches this type of foamed article would provide several advantages, such as excellent shock resistance and inhibition from swelling [0013], over other products.
If advantages of reduced weight, excellent shock resistance and inhibition from swelling were desired for a first component in the molding process of MacDonald, in view of Mares, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the foam molding method and equipment of Ichiki to form a foamed second component in place of the non-foamed second component in the four-component molding process of MacDonald, in view of Mares. This modification would predictably result in a process for forming a second component having a foamed inner section and a denser outer skin, bonded with the other three components to form the molded article.
27. The injection molding method of Claim 21, wherein each of the second mixture and the third mixture includes a physical blowing agent and is foamed or slightly foamed.
With respect to claim 27, as set forth in the rejection of claim 21, MacDonald, in view of Mares, teaches a four-component molding process capable of bonding four different material types to form a product.
MacDonald, in view of Mares, is silent on each of the second mixture and the third mixture including a physical blowing agent and being foamed or slightly foamed.
However, the prior art of Ichiki teaches a foam molding method wherein a molding material is injected into a mold (Fig. 8a), the material outer layers form a hardened skin, the mold is opened to allow expansion of the article (Fig. 8b), producing a foamed inner section of the molded article [0021, 0060-0066]. Ichiki teaches this type of foamed article would provide several advantages, such as excellent shock resistance and inhibition from swelling [0013], over other products.
If advantages of reduced weight, excellent shock resistance and inhibition from swelling were desired for a first component in the molding process of MacDonald, in view of Mares, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the foam molding method and equipment of Ichiki to produce foaming second and third mixtures in place of the non-foamed second and third mixtures used in the four-component molding process of MacDonald, in view of Mares. This modification would predictably result in a process for forming a molded product having second and third components with foamed inner sections bonded to the other components of the molded article.
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 GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights