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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-18 are again rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou (2009/0011064), or over Satou in view of Hirose et al. (2017/0326770).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 10, Satou discloses an injection apparatus 20 comprising
a heating cylinder 21, and the heating cylinder 21 is provided with a hopper 22;
a screw 23 is provided movably forward and rearward and rotatably in the heating cylinder 21, a rear end of the screw 23 is rotatably supported by a movable support member 24;
a load cell 35 as a pressure detection device to detect a pressure of a resin;
a plasticizer moving apparatus 40 as a drive mechanism to apply a nozzle touch pressure by bring the nozzle of the heating cylinder 21 into contact with a stationary mold 53 to achieve nozzle touch [0043], wherein
the nozzle touch pressure can be measured directly by arranging a load cell between a rear end part of the heating cylinder 21 and the fixing support member 49 [0056];
a control part 70, which controls operation of the plasticizer moving motor 42 which is a drive source of the plasticizer moving apparatus 40 and controls a nozzle touch pressure by controlling operation of the plasticizer moving motor 42, [0048].
Satou further discloses how a mold plate 54, where the mold sprue is located, is inclined as a result of a nozzle touch pressure, and correction need to be made to reduce the inclination amount of the mold plate 54 by vary the nozzle tough pressure – see Figs. 2-3, [0055]. Inherently, by monitoring and correcting the amount of inclination of the mold plate 54, the amount of inclination is actually measured while varying the nozzle touch pressure so as to acquire the relationship between the amount of inclination and the nozzle touch pressure [0058]; thus, the misalignment between the injection nozzle and mold plate 54 containing the sprue is also detected and corrected, see [0056]-[0058].
Alternatively, Hirose et al. discloses an injection molding machine, comprising an injection base 10 is equipped with an injection device 4 and fixedly fitted with an injection compression member 6, a drive compression member 7 is connected to a drive unit 5, a plurality of resilient members 8, and a strain sensor 9, wherein a nozzle touch force is measured by a calibrated load cell interposed between the nozzle 12 and the mold 11 at the mold sprue 110, [0030], wherein a voltage output from the strain sensor 9 is amplified by an amplifier 14 and input to a controller 15. After the voltage output is digitized by an A/D converter 150 in the controller 15, the nozzle touch force is calculated based on it by a CPU 151, [0041]-[0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Satou with a controller that measures and determine a nozzle touch force between the nozzle tip and the mold sprue as taught by Hirose et al. in order for better control relative position between the mold plate and the nozzle in order to prevent material leakage during molding.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Satou further discloses that the injection device 20 is a subunit injection device adapted to be additionally connected to an injection molding machine including a frame 10 and an injection apparatus 20 and a mold-clamping apparatus 50 which are arranged on the frame 10.
Regarding claims 3-5, 7-9, and 12, Satou discloses that the load cell 35 is provided between a front-side movable support member 44 and a rear-side movable support member 45, while Hirose et al. disclosed that the load cell interposed between the nozzle 12 and the mold 11, [0044]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide more than one load cells at different predetermined locations in order to improve the accuracy of the measurement of the nozzle touch force.
Regarding claims 13-18, without further descriptions of the structure of the load cell or any additional structure limitations associated with the load cell and the nozzle, the arrangement of the load cell relative to the injection nozzle or the sprue is considered as the relocation of parts, at which the load cell is capable to be rearranged relative to the sprue and the nozzle so that the alignment/misalignment/inclination of the mold plate, the sprue and the nozzle can be detected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the load cell based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness or that it would have been obvious to use the load cell at different locations to measure the pressure at those locations at disclosed by Satou, [0044], [0055].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that none of the prior art reference teaches using a load cell positioned off the screw axis to detect the movement created by lateral force when misalignment occurs, in accordance with the present invention.
Satou discloses that a mold plate 54, where the mold sprue is located, is inclined as a result of a nozzle touch pressure; an amount of inclination of the stationary platen 54 changes when the nozzle touch pressure is varied; and correction need to be made to reduce the inclination amount of the mold plate 54 by vary the nozzle tough pressure – see Figs. 2-3, [0055]; or the nozzle touch pressure can be measured directly by arranging a load cell between a rear end part of the heating cylinder 21 and the fixing support member 49, [0056].
The location of the load cell does not change the ability to measure the touch pressure of the nozzle. As the platen 54 is inclined, the relationship between the sprue and the nozzle is changed and results in misalignment/alignment of the sprue and the nozzle. So, by measuring the touch pressure of the nozzle and the inclination of the mold platen, as in Figs. 2-3, the alignment/misalignment of the sprue and the nozzle is also detected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Thu-Khanh T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/Thu Khanh T. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743