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 Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 03/20/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1 and 3-10 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an axial drive unit that rotates the drive shaft in the axial direction”. This is distinct from the previously recited limitations of “a screw at least a part of which is housed inside the cylinder and that is rotatable and movable in an axial direction of the cylinder” and “a support member that is located between the screw and the drive shaft, ”. Applicant specification, p 3-4 under the description of drive mechanism 34 recites “rotation drive unit 43 that rotates drive shaft 42 around axis C that is aligned in the X-direction, and axial drive unit 44 that rotates drive shaft 42 in the axial direction (X-direction)”. On facial examination of applicant disclosure, it is not clear how the drive shaft both rotates around axis C that is aligned in the X-direction, while also being rotated in the axial direction (X-direction). Applicant specification does not provide any further description of the rotation in the axial direction (X-direction) provided by the axial drive unit beyond recitation of the claimed subject matter. Fig 2 of applicant drawings define the axial direction (X-direction). Rotation “in the axial direction (X-direction)” would lead to clockwise rotation about an axis that is aligned with the presumed Y-direction, i.e., out of the page. Fig 2 of applicant drawings represents axial drive unit 44 as a diagrammatical box and does not provide details of any mechanism to accomplish rotation of the drive shaft in the axial direction. To the contrary, rotation of the drive shaft in the axial direction by the axial drive does not appear to be physically possible as such a rotational movement of the drive shaft and connecting shaft appears constrained by the attachment to screw 33 and contact with bush 53.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to mean “an axial drive unit that moves the drive shaft in the axial direction” as consistent with the previously recited axial movement in the claim.
All claims dependent on the above rejected claims are rejected as well because they include all the limitations of the rejected claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goessling (US2359839) in view of Julinot (US5173312).
Regarding claim 1, Goessling teaches:
An injection unit (Fig 1) comprising:
a cylinder (Fig 1, Annotated Goessling Fig 1: cylinder 8);
a screw at least a part of which is housed inside the cylinder and that is rotatable (Fig 1, Annotated Goessling Fig 1: shaft 16; p1, col 2, ln 37-46);
a ram that is movable in an axial direction of the cylinder (Fig 1, Annotated Goessling Fig 1: ram forward end 1a; p 1, col 1, ln 27-44);
a drive shaft that drives the ram (Fig 1, Annotated Goessling Fig 1: piston 2; p 1, col 1, ln 27-44);
a support member that is located between the screw and the drive shaft, that allows movement in the axial direction of the connecting shaft, and that supports the connecting shaft at least in a vertical direction (Fig 1, Annotated Goessling Fig 1; p 1, col 1, ln 27-44),
a spacer member that is connected to the cylinder and that encloses the connecting shaft (Fig 1, Annotated Goessling Fig 1); and
an axial drive unit that moves the drive shaft in the axial direction (Fig 1, Annotated Goessling Fig 1: cylinder 3; p 1, col 1, ln 27-44),
wherein the support member includes a bush fitted to the connecting shaft and an attachment part for the bush attached to the spacer member (Fig 1, Annotated Goessling Fig 1: bushing 7), and
the connecting shaft is indirectly driven by the axial drive unit via the drive shaft (Fig 1, Annotated Goessling Fig 1; p 1, col 1, ln 27-44).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Goessling does not teach the screw is movable in an axial direction of the cylinder;
a drive shaft that drives the screw;
a connecting shaft that connects the screw and the drive shaft;
the screw is indirectly driven by the axial drive unit via the drive shaft.
In the same field of endeavor regarding injection molding, Julinot teaches a screw movable in an axial direction of the cylinder (col 3, ln 9-11);
a drive shaft that drives the screw (Fig 3-4: quill 28; col 3, ln 62-col 4, ln 20);
a connecting shaft that connects the screw and the drive shaft (Fig 3-4; shank portion 26);
the screw is indirectly driven by the axial drive unit via the drive shaft (Fig 3-4; col 3, ln 62-col 4, ln 20) for the motivation of enabling the screw to both rotate and axially move within the cylinder and to provide an injection molding machine which is not excessive in length (col 1, ln 34-38; col 2, ln 64-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive system as taught by Goessling with the drive system as taught by Julinot in order to enable the screw to both rotate and axially move within the cylinder and to provide an injection molding machine which is not excessive in length.
Goessling in view of Julinot does not explicitly recite the support member allows rotation of the connecting shaft.
However, since the Julinot teaches rotation of the connecting shaft connecting shaft rotates, and Goessling teaches that the bushing is non-rotatable, it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the connecting shaft would rotate in the bushing.
Regarding claim 3, Goessling in view of Julinot teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Goessling further teaches wherein the bush is fitted into the attachment part (Fig 1, Annotated Goessling Fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, Goessling in view of Julinot teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Goessling further teaches wherein the attachment part includes a holding part that holds a tip of the bush that is closer to the screw (Fig 1, Annotated Goessling Fig 1).
Regarding claim 5, Goessling in view of Julinot teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Goessling in view of Julinot is silent as to any oil used with the bushing.
Therefore it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill that the prior art makes obvious wherein the bush is an oilless bush.
Regarding claim 6, Goessling in view of Julinot teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Julinot further teaches wherein the connecting shaft has a constant diameter that is the same as a diameter of a connecting part that connects with the screw in a section in which the support member can face the connecting shaft (Fig 3-4).
Regarding claim 9, Goessling in view of Julinot teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Goessling further teaches a hopper for supplying material to be injected, the hopper being provided on the cylinder (Fig 1, Annotated Goessling Fig 1: hopper 21).
Regarding claim 10, Goessling in view of Julinot teaches the apparatus of claim 9.
Goessling further teaches wherein the spacer member is attached to the cylinder (Fig 1, Annotated Goessling Fig 1).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goessling in view of Julinot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uehara et al. (US2020/0206995 of record) hereinafter Uehara.
Regarding claim 7, Goessling in view of Julinot teaches the injection unit of claim 1.
Goessling further teaches an injection molding machine comprising the injection unit according to claim 1 (Fig 1, Annotated Goessling Fig 1).
Goessling in view of Julinot does not teach a mold clamping unit.
In the same field of endeavor regarding injection molding, Uehara teaches a mold clamping unit for the motivation of opening and closing the molds (Fig mold clamping cylinder 12; [0059, 0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Goessling in view of Julinot with the mold clamping unit as taught by Uehara in order to open and close the molds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/20/2026 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.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights