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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group 1, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged.
The restriction requirement filed on 9/25/2025 is withdrawn as it is moot, because claims 13-20 of the non-elected group II have been cancelled.
New claims 21-28 are acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. The instant specification [within the last two lines of 0040, 0044, 0048] should be amended from “physical forming” to “physical foaming”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendments to the specification, filed on 11/17/2025, are acknowledged and satisfactory.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 5-8, 12 and 23-27 are objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical & spelling errors, and minor informalities.
Claim 3, line 2: suggest amending to “before ”.
Claim 3, line 4: suggest amending to “before ”.
Claim 4, line 7: suggest amending to “before ”.
Claim 4, line 8: suggest amending to “before ”.
Claim 6, line 2: suggest amending to “first mold, wherein is over the first mold”.
Claim 6, line 6: suggest amending to “before ”.
Claim 7, line 3: suggest amending to “during the forming of the first component”.
Claim 8, line 2: suggest amending to “includes a physical blowing agent”.
Claim 12, line 2: suggest amending to “before ”.
Claim 12, line 3: suggest amending to “before ”.
Claim 12, line 5: suggest amending to “before ”.
Claim 12, line 6: suggest amending to “before ”.
Claim 23, line 2: suggest amending to “before ”.
Claim 23, line 4: suggest amending to “before ”.
Claim 23, lines 5-6: suggest amending to “the second sub-cavity of the second mold cavity”.
Claim 24, line 7: suggest amending to “before ”.
Claim 24, line 8: suggest amending to “before ”.
Claim 24, line 10: suggest amending to “after ”.
Claim 26, line 3: suggest amending to “during the forming of the second component”.
Claim 27, line 2: suggest amending to “includes a physical blowing agent”.
Claims 5 & 25 cite controlling flows “at the same or different flow rates”. This phrase is not further limiting because ‘the same or different’ includes all possible options. It is suggested to select either ‘same’ or ‘different’, or remove the entire phrase “”. If the phrase is removed, the term ‘controlling’ further limits claims 5 & 25 from their independent claims.
Claims 8 & 27 cite that mixtures are “foamable or slightly foamable”. From the Examiner’s understanding, if a mixture can produce any amount of foam, it is considered foamable – however, its product could be fully foamed or could be partially foamed in areas. It is suggested to amend to “foamable” or “foameded”.
Claims 7 & 26 cite that a central part of a component undergoes “a higher degree of physical forming” than a peripheral part. From the instant specification paragraphs [0040, 0044, 0048], it is clear that “physical forming” is a typographical error, and should be corrected to “physical foaming”.
The instant specification [within the last two lines of 0040, 0044, 0048] should also be amended from “physical forming” to “physical foaming”.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 1 cites “a mold cavity defined by the first mold and the second mold”, while claim 6 cites “another mold cavity defined by the first mold and the third mold”. Afterward, claim 6 cites “injecting the first mixture into the mold cavity”, “wherein the mold cavity is further defined by the second mold and the third component disposed in the first mold”.
Claim 6 is indefinite, as it is unclear if “the mold cavity” in claim 6 refers to “a mold cavity” in claim 1, “another mold cavity” in claim 6, or a different mold cavity altogether. If it does not refer to “another mold cavity” in claim 6, an insufficient antecedent basis for “the mold cavity” would exist.
Correction is required.
For the sake of compact prosecution, it is understood by the Examiner that “the mold cavity” in claim 6 is defined by “a mold cavity” from claim 1 housing a ‘third’ component inside, (which is a different mold cavity altogether), 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (CN1921997A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. 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; injecting a first mixture into the mold cavity through a first feeding port; forming a first component from the first mixture; injecting a second mixture into the 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 first component, and the first component and the second component have different physical properties.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Smith teaches an injection molding method, comprising: providing a molding device including a first mold (Fig. 27, item 22), a second mold (Fig. 27, item 24) over the first mold and a mold cavity (Fig. 27, spaces including items 23a, 23b, 18) defined by the first mold and the second mold; injecting a first resin mixture (Fig. 27, item 18) into the mold cavity through a first feeding port, which Smith teaches via ‘multi-injection molding for three resin materials’ [P. 11, ¶ 7]. Smith teaches forming a first component (Fig. 27, item 18) from the first mixture; injecting a second mixture into the mold cavity through a second feeding port (Fig. 27, item 23b); and forming a second component (Fig. 28, item 20b) from the second mixture, wherein the second component is at least partially in contact with the first component as Smith teaches multiple materials can form the product [P. 11, ¶ 6], and the first component and the second component can have different physical properties [P. 11, ¶ 6; Claim 8].
2. The injection molding method of Claim 1, further comprising: dividing the 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 mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold and the first partition.
With respect to claim 2, Smith teaches dividing the mold cavity into a first sub-cavity (Fig. 26, space of item 18) and a second sub-cavity (Fig. 26, item 23b) by a first partition (Fig. 26, item 26b), wherein the first partition is removable from the cavity (See Figs. 26 to 27, item 26b), and the first sub-cavity of the mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold and the first partition (See Fig. 26).
While Smith illustrates the first partition (Figs. 26 & 27, item 26b) as a retractor that withdraws from the cavity to provide fluid connection between sub-cavities; Smith teaches a ‘retractor’ and a ‘partition member’ as clear alternatives for dividing the subcavities [P. 7, ¶ 4 - P. 8, ¶ 1].
3. The injection molding method of Claim 2, further comprising: removing the first partition from the 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, and the second sub-cavity of the mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold and the first component.
With respect to claim 3, Smith teaches removing the first partition from the mold cavity before injecting the second mixture into the second sub-cavity of the mold cavity (See Fig. 27), wherein before removing the first partition from the mold cavity, the first component is at least partially in contact with the first partition (Fig. 26, contact between items 18 & 26b), and the second sub-cavity (Fig. 26, item 23b) of the mold cavity is defined by the first mold, the second mold and the first component.
4. The injection molding method of Claim 1, further comprising: dividing the 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 mold cavity before the injecting the second mixture into the second sub-cavity of the mold cavity, wherein before the 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 after the injecting the second mixture into the second sub-cavity of the mold cavity; and injecting a third mixture through a third feeding port into the third sub-cavity defined by the first mold, the second mold and the second component.
With respect to claim 4, Smith teaches dividing the mold cavity (Fig. 27, item 10a) into a first sub-cavity (Fig. 27, item 18), a second sub-cavity (Fig. 27, item 23b) and a third sub-cavity (Fig. 27, item 23a) by a first partition (Fig. 27, item 26b) and a second partition (Fig. 27, item 26a), wherein the first partition and the second partition are removable from the mold cavity [P. 12, ¶ 3-4], 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. Smith teaches removing the first partition from the mold cavity before the injecting the second mixture into the second sub-cavity of the mold cavity (See item 23b from Figs. 26 to 27), wherein before the removing the first partition from the mold cavity, the first component is at least partially in contact with the first partition (see Fig. 27, item 18, Fig. 26, item 26b); removing the second partition from the mold cavity after the injecting the second mixture into the second sub-cavity of the mold cavity; and injecting a third mixture through a third feeding port (Fig. 28, item 23a) into the third sub-cavity defined by the first mold, the second mold and the second component [P. 12, ¶ 3-6].
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; injecting a first mixture into the mold cavity through a first feeding port; forming a first component from the first mixture; injecting a second mixture into the mold cavity through a second feeding port; and forming a second component from the second mixture, 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 Smith teaches an injection molding method, comprising: providing a molding device including a first mold (Fig. 27, item 22), a second mold (Fig. 27, item 24) over the first mold and a mold cavity (combined space of Fig. 27, items 23b, 18, 23a) defined by the first mold and the second mold; injecting a first mixture into the mold cavity through a first feeding port (Fig. 26, items 23b); forming a first component (Fig. 28, items 20b) from the first mixture; injecting a second mixture into the mold cavity through a second feeding port (Fig. 26, items 23a); and forming a second component (Fig. 28, items 20a) from the second mixture, wherein the second component is separated from the first component. Smith teaches the first component and the second component have different physical properties [P. 11, ¶ 6; Claim 8].
10. The injection molding method of Claim 9, further comprising: 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.
With respect to claim 10, Smith teaches dividing the mold cavity into a first sub-cavity (Fig. 26, item 23b) and a second sub-cavity (Fig. 26, item 23a) by a first partition (Fig. 26, item 26b) and a second partition (Fig. 26, item 26a), wherein the first partition and the second partition are removable (as shown from Fig. 26 to Fig. 27), and the first sub-cavity of the mold cavity (combined space of items 23b, 18, 23a) is defined by the first mold (Fig. 26, item 22), the second mold (Fig. 26, item 24) 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.
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 5 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (CN1921997A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
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 at the same or different flow rates.
With respect to claim 5, Smith teaches the first mixture flows through the first feeding port and the second mixture flows through the second feeding port.
Smith does not explicitly teach ‘controlling’ the injection of materials into the mold, as a molding machine / controller are external to the scope of the mold embodiments taught by Smith.
However, Smith teaches generally adopting an injection molding method [P. 7, ¶ 4] to perform the mold operations, wherein injection molding is widely known to comprise an injection molding machine with a controller to perform operations upon a mold.
Smith is silent on any ‘uncontrolled’ operations (e.g. uncontrolled cavity filling, manual pouring/injection of materials, or any operator actions in general) which would teach away from the use of a generic molding machine. Smith teaches the use of common molding machine materials such as polyurethane, polycarbonate and polyvinyl chloride [P. 7, ¶ 3], which have very high melting temperatures and would not be safe for manual injection operations.
From these Smith teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that a commonly-known generic molding machine comprising a conventional mold controller could be used for performing the molding operations taught by Smith, which would include control of the partition movement and of the injection flow rates of the molding materials into the mold.
The flow of the first and second mixtures through their ports would obviously have the same or different flow rates.
11. The injection molding method of Claim 10, further comprising: injecting a third mixture into the mold cavity through a third feeding port; 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.
With respect to claim 11, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10, Smith teaches injecting a third mixture into the mold cavity through a third feeding port, which Smith teaches via ‘multi-injection molding for three resin materials’ [P. 11, ¶ 7]. Smith teaches forming a third component (Fig. 27, item 18) from the third mixture, wherein the third component is at least partially in contact with the first component (Fig. 28, item 20b) and the second component (Fig. 28, item 20a).
Smith is silent on forming the third component after the first and second components in Figures 26-28, based on the geometry of the third sub-cavity. In the embodiment shown in Figures 26-28, Smith teaches the central (third) component is formed first, as its shape is defined by the closed retractor partitions (Fig. 26, items 26a, 26b).
However, Smith teaches different product geometries are possible, such as Figure 10, wherein the interface between adjacent materials can be a straight line (See Figs. 10-12).
Smith teaches an alternate embodiment for the Figure 10 design wherein the order of injection can be reversed, with either of the two materials being injected first (e.g., by rotating the retractor for geometry shown) [P. 10, ¶ 7]. Smith also teaches in general that the sequence and order of injection of the materials can be changed (as desired and as allowable by the product/mold design) [P. 12 ¶ 7 – P. 13 ¶ 1].
From these Smith teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that an alternate embodiment of Figures 26-28 could form a similar three-material product by having a repositioned geometry for the retracting partitions, wherein the central (third) cavity would be able to inject material to form the third component after the forming of the outer (first and second) components. This modification could be realized by replacing the lower material interface section of Figure 26, comprising partition (Fig. 26, item 26a), with the partition and mold geometry shown in Figure 10; and with the upper material interface section of Figure 26 replaced by the flipped mirror image of Figure 10.
12. The injection molding method of Claim 11, further comprising: removing the first partition from the mold cavity before injecting the third mixture into a third sub-cavity of the mold cavity, wherein before the removing the first partition from the mold cavity, the first component is at least partially in contact with the first partition; and removing the second partition from the mold cavity before injecting the third mixture into the third sub-cavity of 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, 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.
With respect to claim 12, as set forth in the rejection of claim 11, Smith provides teachings and renders obvious an alternate embodiment rationale to teach removing the first partition from the mold cavity before injecting the third mixture into a third 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; and removing the second partition from the mold cavity before injecting the third mixture into the third sub-cavity of 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, 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (CN1921997A), as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, in view of MacDonald (US20080012176A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
6. The injection molding method of Claim 1, further comprising: providing the molding device including the first mold and a third mold over the first mold; injecting a third mixture into another 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; and replacing the third mold by the second mold before the injecting the first mixture into the mold cavity through the first feeding port, wherein the mold cavity is further defined by the second mold and the third component disposed in the first mold.
With respect to claim 6, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Smith teaches a two-material product formed between and first and second mold. Smith teaches forming a third component (Fig. 28, item 20a) from a third mixture to create a combined three-material product (Fig 28, item 10a); however, this is accomplished by a third injection port (Fig. 28, item 23a) adding material between the first and second molds.
Smith is silent on a third mold placed over the first mold for injecting a third material.
However, the prior art of MacDonald teaches a molding method for receiving a molding material to produce a molded part between a first and second mold half (Fig. 1C, item 110; [0029]), opening the mold halves [0029], rotating the first mold half containing the molded component [0029] in order to receive a different molding material between the first mold and a third mold (Fig. 1F, item 112; [0030]). After, the first and third mold halves are opened and the completed article can be removed from the first mold cavity [0030]. The first mold half rotates to its starting position and the process can restart. This well-known method allows for the overmolding of multiple materials over or alongside one another, while the product components are held within the first mold half during the process.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique of overmolding at different molding station with different mold halves, taught by MacDonald, to improve the similar molding method of Smith by allowing a means to mold a third component to the molded article. This modification would be desirable if several variations of a product are manufactured, wherein select mold halves could be swapped at each molding station based on the desired product.
Claims 7 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (CN1921997A), as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, 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, Smith teaches a three sub-cavity mold (See Fig. 26) capable of bonding three different material types to form a product.
Smith also teaches an optional embodiment wherein a foaming material (Fig. 26, item 122) is placed into the middle cavity of the three sub-cavity mold prior to material injections to form an outer foam layer over the middle section material [P. 5, ¶ 6]. Smith teaches this forms a soft cushion outer section to a component (Fig. 2, foamed items 112, 122; [P. 6, ¶ 8 – P. 7, ¶ 2]). Smith teaches the foaming is induced by an applied vacuum [P. 5, ¶ 6].
Smith is silent on a central part of the first (middle) 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 the type of foaming embodiment taught by Ichiki were desired for a central section of a product similar to the design of Smith, 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 of Ichiki into central section component within a three sub-cavity mold taught by Smith (See Fig. 26), in place of the injection molding method for the central section component within a three sub-cavity mold, taught by Smith. This modification would predictably result in a product having a central part (Fig. 28, item 18) with a foamed inner section and a denser outer skin, bonded to the same two outer sections of the product taught by Smith.
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 foamable.
With respect to claim 8, Ichiki teaches the first mixture for the central section of the product would include a physical blowing agent, and is foamable [0055, 0065].
If desired for the product by the method of Smith, in view of Ichiki, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to duplicate the foaming method of the first mixture to the second mixture in order to apply this foaming technique to second section of the product as well.
Claims 21-23, 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacDonald (US20080012176A1), in view of Smith (CN1921997A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
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; 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; and forming a third component from the third mixture, 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 a molding method for injecting a first molding material by a primary-injection unit (Fig. 1C, item 118; [0029]) to produce a molded component between a first and second mold half (Fig. 1C, item 110; [0029]), opening the mold halves [0029], and rotating the first mold half containing the molded component [0029] in order to inject a second molding material using the first mold and a third mold at an overmolding station (Fig. 1F, item 112; [0030]). This well-known method allows for the overmolding of multiple materials over or alongside one another, while the product components are held within the first mold half during the process.
MacDonald is silent on injecting a third mixture while the first mold half faces the third mold half at the overmolding station. MacDonald is silent on using three components having different physical properties.
However, in a similar field of art, the prior art of Smith teaches a molding process wherein a first molded component (Fig. 28, item 18) could have second and third molding material added into second and third cavities (Fig. 28, items 23b, 23a), overmolding the first component [P. 12, ¶ 3-7].
Smith teaches the first, second, and third components can have different physical properties [P. 11, ¶ 6; Claim 8].
Smith is silent on the use of more than two mold halves.
If it were desired to have two materials overmolding a molded first 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 mold half taught by Smith (Fig. 28, item 24), which comprises two partitions and two injection ports, in place of the ‘third’ mold half taught by MacDonald, which is used with the first mold half for overmolding. This substitution would predictably result in an improved overmolding station over the method of MacDonald, by adding a means for injecting and overmolding two materials onto a molded component to form a three-material article.
The modified embodiment of MacDonald, in view of Smith is silent on the second and third materials in at least partial contact after injection.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to further modify the mold half of Smith (Fig. 28, item 24) at the modified overmolding station, to create a fluid communication path for the second and third molding materials (Fig. 28, items 23b, 23a) to meet between the retracting partitions (Fig. 28, items 26b, 26a). This modification would fully overcoat one side of the first component (Fig. 28, item 18) and allow contact between the second and third materials, and would be advantageous if this product type were so desired by the manufacturer.
22. The injection molding method of Claim 21, 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 component, the third mold and the first partition.
With respect to claim 22, Smith teaches dividing the second mold cavity into a first sub-cavity (Fig. 28, space of item 18) and a second sub-cavity (Fig. 28, space of item 23b) by a first partition (Fig. 28, space of item 26b), wherein the first partition is removable from the cavity (see Fig. 26 to Fig. 27), and the first sub-cavity of the second mold cavity is defined by the first component (of MacDonald), the ‘third’ mold half (Smith Fig. 27, item 24) and the first partition.
23. The injection molding method of Claim 22, further comprising: removing the first partition from the second mold cavity before the injecting the third mixture into the second sub-cavity of the second mold cavity, wherein before the 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 mold cavity is defined by the first component, the second mold and the second component.
With respect to claim 23, Smith teaches that the two retracting partitions can operate in any desired sequence, and the second and third molding materials can be injected in any desired sequence [P. 12, ¶ 7].
From this, it is clear that the modified process of MacDonald, in view of Smith, can teach removing the first partition from the second mold cavity before the injecting the third mixture into the second sub-cavity of the second mold cavity, wherein before the 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 mold cavity is defined by the first component, the second mold and the second component.
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 at the same or different flow rates.
With respect to claim 25, MacDonald teaches a control system [0040] used to control the injection devices at the molding station and the overmolding station
It would be prima facie obvious that the control system would control the second and third molding material injectors in the modified process of MacDonald, in view of Smith.
The second and third molding materials must flow at the same or different flow rates.
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 modified process of MacDonald, in view of Smith, teaches the first component would be in contact with bottoms of the second component and the third component.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacDonald (US20080012176A1), in view of Smith (CN1921997A) as set forth in the rejection of claim 21, in view of Ichiki (US20200398464A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
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, MacDonald, in view of Smith, is silent on the foaming of the second molding material.
However, the prior art of Ichiki teaches a central part of a component undergoes a higher degree of physical foaming than a peripheral part of the component during the forming of the component. 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 the second component in the process of MacDonald, in view of Smith, was desired to have the type of foaming embodiment taught by Ichiki, wherein the central part undergoes a higher degree of physical foaming than a peripheral part, 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 of Ichiki into second component within a three material mold taught by MacDonald, in view of Smith (See Fig. 26), in place of the injection molding method for the non-foamed second component within a three-material mold, taught by Smith. This modification would predictably result in a product having a second component (Smith Fig. 28, item 23b) with a foamed inner section and a denser outer skin.
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 foamable or slightly foamable.
With respect to claim 27, MacDonald, in view of Smith, is silent on the foaming of the second and third molding materials, or on their mixtures including a physical blowing agent.
However, the prior art of Ichiki teaches a molding process would include a physical blowing agent to make molding materials foamable [0055, 0065]. 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 the second and third components in the process of MacDonald, in view of Smith, were desired to have the type of foaming embodiment taught by Ichiki, wherein where the components comprised a physical blowing agent and wherein the central part undergoes a higher degree of physical foaming than a peripheral part, 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 of Ichiki into the second and third molding components, in place of the injection molding method for the non-foamed second and third components taught by MacDonald, in view of Smith. This modification would predictably result in a product having a second and third component (Smith Fig. 28, items 23b, 23a) foamable product comprising a physical blowing agent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is 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.
Regarding claim 24, no prior art was found to modify MacDonald, in view of Smith, to teach
24. The injection molding method of Claim 21, further comprising: 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.
Conclusion
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