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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 03/31/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art does not teach a resin injection port and a discharge port provided on a bottom surface of a cavity, a resin reservoir that is communicably connected to the discharge port, a suction hole connected to the resin reservoir and a switching plunger disposed within the resin reservoir, and the switching plunger is configured to selectively connect or block communication between the discharge port and the suction hole.
This is not found persuasive because applicant makes general allegations that the prior art does not teach certain elements of claim 1 while neglecting any discussion of the interpretation of the prior art provided in the original restriction requirement or current art rejection below. As shown below in the art rejection, contrary to applicant assertions, claim 1 is taught in its entirety by the prior art. Therefore none of the features of claim 1 can be considered to be a shared special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/31/2026.
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 1 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 recites the limitation "the mold". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the mold has been interpreted to mean the molding die.
All dependent claims are also rejected because they depend from and thus include all the limitations of the rejected independent 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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara (JP2017034238 with reference made to examiner provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Miyahara teaches:
A molding die for resin molding (apparatus 100), the mold comprising:
a first die configured to hold a molded object (Fig 4-19: lower die chess 50); and
a second die configured to be clamped with the first die (Fig 4-19: cull plate 21, intermediate mold 30; [0037]) and having a cavity (Fig 4-19: cavity 35), wherein
the second die includes:
a pot (Fig 4-19: pot 51, cull portion 32, runner 22) that is communicably connected to a resin injection port provided on a surface of the cavity (Fig 4-19: spool 33), and where a resin material is contained (Fig 4-19: resin 61);
an injection plunger that is advanced and retracted inside the pot to inject the resin material into the cavity via the resin injection port (Fig 4-19: plunger 52; [0038]);
a resin reservoir (Fig 4-19: air vent 24) that is communicably connected to a discharge port provided on the surface of the cavity (Fig 4-19: resin reservoir) and where the resin material flown out of the cavity accumulates (Fig 4-19; [0041]);
a suction hole that is connected to the resin reservoir and that is configured to suction air via the resin reservoir, through the discharge port (Fig 4-19: passage 23; [0037-0038]); and
a switching plunger that is advanced and retracted inside the resin reservoir to switch between a mode for communicably connecting the suction hole to the discharge port, and a mode for blocking the suction hole (Fig 4-19: air vent pin 25; [0037, 0040]).
Miyahara does not teach the injection port and the discharge port are provided on a bottom surface of the cavity. Miyahara teaches that the injection port and the discharge port are provided on a top surface of the cavity (Fig 4-19) as the configuration of Miyahara is essentially inverted as compared to the claimed invention.
It has been broadly held that rearrangement of parts is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the apparatus as taught by Miyahara to be inverted so that the injection port and the discharge port are provided on a bottom surface of the cavity.
Regarding claim 2, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Miyahara further teaches wherein the resin injection port and the discharge port are provided in an outer periphery of the bottom surface of the cavity, and are provided at positions symmetrical to each other with respect to a center of the bottom surface of the cavity (Fig 4-19).
Regarding claim 3, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Miyahara further teaches wherein the injection plunger and the switching plunger are advanced and retracted in a manner associated with each other (Fig 4-19; [0037-0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Miyahara further teaches wherein the switching plunger switches from the mode for communicably connecting the suction hole to the discharge port, to the mode for blocking the suction hole, in a manner associated with an operation of the injection plunger injecting the resin material, and then switches to a mode for pressing the resin material inside the cavity, together with the injection plunger (Fig 4-19; [0037-0031])
Regarding claim 5, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Miyahara further teaches wherein the second die includes:
an intermediate plate having the cavity, and provided with the resin injection port and the discharge port (Fig 4-19: intermediate mold 30); and
a lower plate provided with the pot, the resin reservoir, and the suction hole (Fig 4-19: cull plate 21).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maeda et al. (US11114322 of record) hereinafter Maeda.
Regarding claim 6, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Miyahara does not teach wherein the resin injection port is provided in a plurality, and the plurality of resin injection ports are connected to the pot via a resin supply channel, or the discharge port is provided in plurality, and the plurality of discharge ports are connected to the resin reservoir via a resin discharge channel.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molding, Maeda teaches a discharge port is provided in plurality (Fig 9e: vent 10v), and the plurality of discharge ports are connected to a resin reservoir (Fig 9e: intermediate cavity 10d) via a resin discharge channel (Fig 9e) for the motivation of obtaining a higher dam effect of the resin (col 7, ln 59-64).
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 Miyahara to have a plurality of discharge ports as taught by Maeda in order to obtain a higher dam effect of the resin.
Regarding claim 7, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Miyahara does not teach wherein the pot is provided in plurality, and the plurality of pots are connected to the resin injection port via a resin supply channel, or the resin reservoir is provided in plurality, and the plurality of resin reservoirs are connected to the discharge port by a resin discharge channel.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molding, Maeda teaches a resin reservoir is provided in plurality (Fig 9c: intermediate cavity 10d), and the plurality of resin reservoirs are connected to a discharge port (Fig 9c: vent 10v) by a resin discharge channel (Fig 9c) for the motivation of allowing the outflow of resin from the cavity to be uniform (col 7, ln 46-51).
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 Miyahara to have a plurality of resin reservoirs as taught by Maeda in order to allow outflow of resin from the cavity to be uniform.
Conclusion
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