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
Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/1/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 1/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-13 that the primary prior art of Tamada not teaching the amended elements of claim 1 of ‘allowing the supply of gas into the heating cylinder while the screw is driven’.
First, for claim 1, the term ‘driven’ is understood to refer to only the rotation of the screw, not advancement of the screw to inject resin to the mold. Supplying gas during screw advancement / resin injection is not supported by the instant specification, and would introduce new matter.
Tamada does teach the control valve can be opened to inject gas into starvation section of the cylinder during metering and screw rotation (kneading) [P. 8, last 4 lines – P. 9, ¶ 1]. It would also be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that excess gas injection into a barrel with a stationary screw could introduce an undesirable gas bubble.
When the sensed starvation zone pressure exceeds a threshold, Tamada teaches closing the gas control valve in order to prevent high-pressure resin entering the gas injection port and causing ‘vent-up’ [P. 9, ¶ 1]. The instant specification also discloses shutting the control valve to prevent vent-up before resin injection (Fig. 3, S5-S6; [0063, 0073, 0075]).
From these comparisons, the Tamada gas injection control method is understood by the Examiner to meet those of the instant claims.
The Examiner agrees with the page 11 argument that Tamada does not teach a controller. However, Tamada teaches a control needle valve and teaches the control method of opening and closing the valve in response to sensed starvation zone pressure. Because Tamada does not specify the control type (pneumatic, electronic controller, etc.), the prior art of Mayama has been used to provide obvious modification for the use of a controller in the method of Tamada.
Other Applicant’s arguments presented in pages 11-13 are in regards to the amendments to claim 1, and will be discussed in the Claim Interpretation and 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections sections.
The new claim 17 and the amendments to claims 1-2 & 7 are acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
In the amended section of claim 1 (lines 26-27), cites the element “to allow the supply of gas into the heating cylinder while the screw is driven”. It is commonly known the screw of an injection molding machine can be driven in a rotating direction or axial (injecting/retracting) directions. For amended claim 1, the term ‘driven’ will be interpreted by the Examiner to only refer to rotation of the screw, not in advancing the screw axially to inject resin into mold.
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, 7 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamada (JP2018199306A), in view of Mayama (JP2004155134A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. An injection device comprising: a heating cylinder having a gas injection port; a screw provided to be driven in the heating cylinder; a gas supplier configured to supply gas to the gas injection port; and a controller, wherein the heating cylinder is divided into a plurality of zones according to a shape of the screw, including: a plasticization zone where a resin is plasticized on an upstream side; a starvation zone where a resin pressure decreases on a downstream side of the plasticization zone, and a compression zone on the downstream side of the starvation zone, wherein gas from the gas injection port is to be supplied into the heating cylinder in the starvation zone, wherein the gas injection port is provided with an injection valve configured to open and close the gas injection port, wherein the heating cylinder includes a pressure sensor configured to measure a resin pressure, and wherein the controller is configured to control the injection valve based on the resin pressure detected by the pressure sensor using a first threshold value set in the controller to allow the supply of gas into the heating cylinder while the screw is driven, the controller being configured to open the injection valve when the resin pressure is at or below the first threshold value and close the injection valve when the resin pressure exceeds the first threshold value.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Tamada teaches an injection device (Fig. 1) comprising: a heating cylinder (Fig. 1, item 2) having a gas injection port (Fig. 1, hole beneath needle in valve mechanism - item 31); a screw (Fig. 1, item 3) provided to be driven in the heating cylinder [P. 2, Description of Embodiments]; a gas supply device (Fig. 1, item 36) configured to supply gas to the gas injection port [P. 4, ¶ 2]; wherein the heating cylinder is divided into a plurality of zones according to a shape of the screw, including: a plasticization zone (Fig. 6, screw section from resin inlet - item 59, before first compression section - item 54) where a resin is plasticized on an upstream side [P. 3, ¶ 1]; a starvation zone (Fig. 1, item 9) where a resin pressure decreases on a downstream side of the plasticization zone [P. 3, ¶ 1], and a compression zone (Fig. 1, item 10) on the downstream side of the starvation zone [P. 3, ¶ 1], wherein gas from the gas injection port is to be supplied into the heating cylinder in the starvation zone (Fig. 1, inlet hole in item 30), wherein the gas injection port is provided with an injection valve (Fig. 1, item 31) configured to open and close the gas injection port [P. 4, ¶ 2-3], wherein the heating cylinder includes a pressure sensor (Fig. 1, item 38) configured to measure a resin pressure [P. 4, ¶ 3], and the injection valve is controlled based on the resin pressure detected by the pressure sensor [P. 8, ¶ 4 - P. 9, ¶ 1].
Tamada teaches using a first threshold value set in the controller to allow the supply of gas into the heating cylinder while the screw is rotated; opening the injection valve when the resin pressure is at or below the first threshold value and closing the injection valve when the resin pressure exceeds the first threshold value [P. 8, last 4 lines – P. 9, ¶ 1].
Tamada does not explicitly teach a control device, although Tamada teaches the gas injection valve is controlled by some means, which is based on the resin pressure detected by the pressure sensor. The Tamada invention focuses only on the injection device (Fig. 1, item 1) portion of a molding machine [P. 2, Description of Embodiments]; therefore, all other components of a conventional molding machine, including a control device, have not been detailed.
However, in the same field of art, the prior art of Mayama teaches a control device, comprising a computer [0036], of an injection molding machine [0022]. Mayama teaches “the control device 50 controls the operations of the screw driving device 25 and the screw rotating device 28 of the injection device 20 based on the supply gas pressure and the cylinder internal pressure [0033]”.
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 a computer-type control device, used to control an injection device of a molding machine, taught by Mayama, to improve the injection device of Tamada, in the same way. The incorporation of a control device improves the modified injection device of Tamada, in view of Mayama, by providing the means for controlling the operations of the screw driving device, screw rotating device, and the gas injection valve.
7. The injection device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to close the injection valve based on detecting completion of metering in the injection device.
With respect to claim 7, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, the modified injection device of Tamada, in view of Mayama, teaches a computer-type controller.
Tamada teaches the control device would be configured to close the injection valve based on detecting completion of metering in the injection device. Tamada teaches “before rotating the screw 3, the needle valve 32 of the injection part 30 is closed. That is, the adhesion of the resin to the injection port 35 is prevented. The screw 3 is rotated to start weighing [P. 5, ¶ 1]”.
17. The injection device according to claim 1, wherein the pressure sensor is positioned to detect the resin pressure in the starvation zone of the heating cylinder.
With respect to claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Tamada teaches the pressure sensor is positioned to detect the resin pressure in the starvation zone of the heating cylinder [P. 10, lines 1-4].
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamada (JP2018199306A), in view of Mayama (JP2004155134A), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Naitou (WO2019017293A1).
2. The injection device according to claim 1, wherein the heating cylinder has a plurality of the gas injection ports, each of the gas injection ports being provided with the injection valve controlled by the controller.
With respect to claim 2, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Tamada, in view of Mayama, teaches an injection device comprising a heating cylinder with a gas injection being provided with the injection valve controlled by the controller.
Tamada, in view of Mayama, is silent on the heating cylinder having a plurality of the gas injection ports.
However, in the same field of art, the prior art of Naitou teaches an injection device with a heating cylinder (Fig. 1A, item 2) comprising two gas injection ports (Fig. 1A, items 29A & 29B) at predetermined intervals in the axial direction, with each port comprising a controllable injection valve (Fig. 1A, items 32A & 32B; [P. 6, ¶ 2]). Naitou teaches the ports are spaced in the cylinder so that at least one port will always be exposed to the starvation section whether the screw is fully injecting or fully retracted [P. 6, ¶ 2].
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 gas injection section taught by Naitou in place of the single gas injection port and valve taught by Tamada, in view of Mayama; this modification would predictably result in two gas injection port and valves for the starvation section, leaving at least one port exposed in the starvation section at all times, and prima facie obviously increasing versatility for controls of the gas inlet system.
3. The injection device according to claim 1, wherein the heating cylinder includes a plurality of the pressure sensors.
With respect to claim 3, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Tamada teaches a pressure sensor (Fig. 1, item 38) measures resin pressure in the starvation section of the heating cylinder.
Tamada, in view of Mayama, is silent on the heating cylinder including a plurality of pressure sensors.
However, the prior art of Naitou also teaches a pressure sensor (Fig. 1A, item 33) measuring resin pressure in the starvation section of the heating cylinder [P. 6, ¶ 3]. Naitou also teaches “the resin pressure sensor can be modified, and two or more may be provided [P. 7, ¶ 3]”.
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 two or more resin pressure sensors, taught by Naitou, to improve the similar device Tamada, in view of Mayama, in the same way. This modification would either add redundancy to the starvation zone resin pressure reading, allowing measurements in a plurality of starvation zone locations; or sensors could prima facie obviously be added to other zones of the heating cylinder, for example, to measure a compression pressure and/or back pressure, which could be employed to optimize the foam molding process.
4. The injection device according to claim 3, wherein in a case where the screw is located at a screw position at the start of metering, at least two of the plurality of pressure sensors are located in the starvation zone.
With respect to claim 4, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, Tamada, in view of Mayama and Naitou, teaches a starvation zone pressure sensor, and a modification where two or more pressure sensors can measure the resin pressure within the cylinder.
Tamada, in view of Mayama and Naitou, is silent on exact placement of additional resin pressure measurement sensors, and therefore is silent on at least two of the plurality of pressure sensors are located in the starvation zone in a case where the screw is located at a screw position at the start of metering.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to try positioning a second pressure sensor in the starvation zone for several reasons: the two sensors could be placed before and after a gas injection port to provide localized pressure readings to detect an error; and a second sensor could add redundancy to allow operation if one sensor failed.
5. The injection device according to claim 3, wherein in a case where the screw is located at a screw position at the start of metering, at least one of the plurality of pressure sensors is located in the starvation zone, and at least another one of the plurality of pressure sensors is located in the plasticization zone.
With respect to claim 5, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, Tamada, in view of Mayama and Naitou, teaches a starvation zone pressure sensor, and a modification where two or more pressure sensors can measure the resin pressure within the cylinder.
Tamada, in view of Mayama and Naitou, is silent on exact placement of additional resin pressure measurement sensors, and therefore is silent on at least another one of the plurality of pressure sensors is located in the plasticization zone in a case where the screw is located at a screw position at the start of metering, at least one of the plurality of pressure sensors is located in the starvation zone.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to try positioning a second pressure sensor in the plasticization zone at the start of metering, this would allow measurement of both the starvation zone resin pressure and the plasticization resin pressure, which could be used to prevent commonly known abnormalities such as vent-up [See Tamada P. 9, ¶ 1].
6. The injection device according to claim 3, wherein at least one of the plurality of pressure sensors is provided upstream of the gas injection port, and at least another one of the plurality of pressure sensors is provided downstream of the gas injection port.
With respect to claim 6, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, Tamada, in view of Mayama and Naitou, teaches a starvation zone pressure sensor, and a modification where two or more pressure sensors can measure the resin pressure within the cylinder.
Tamada, in view of Mayama and Naitou, is silent on exact placement of additional resin pressure measurement sensors, and therefore is silent on at least one of the plurality of pressure sensors provided upstream of the gas injection port, and at least another one of the plurality of pressure sensors is provided downstream of the gas injection port.
However, Naitou teaches an embodiment of Figure 1A wherein a pressure sensor is located between two gas injection ports; this teaches that a sensor can be placed either before or after a gas injection port within a starvation zone.
From this teaching, in an embodiment with two sensors and one gas injection port, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to try placing a one pressure sensor upstream of the gas injection port, and the other downstream.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to try positioning a second pressure sensor in the starvation zone for several reasons: the two sensors could be placed before and after a gas injection port to provide localized pressure readings to detect an error; and a second sensor could add redundancy to allow operation if one sensor failed.
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