DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 5/29/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-25 are pending with claims 20-25 being withdrawn.
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 of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on 5/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 20-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/29/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fastening means” in claims 2, 7, 12 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 3-6 are 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 3 recites the limitation "the stripper sleeve" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4-6 are similarly rejected as being dependent on claim 3.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KMOCH et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0050476), hereinafter KMOCH.
Regarding claim 1, KMOCH teaches: A mold assembly for making tubular articles (KMOCH teaches a mold assembly for tubular articles [Abstract; Fig. 1; 0090].), the assembly comprising: a core plate (KMOCH teaches a core plate (104) [0090].); one or more core inserts each mounted at first of its longitudinal ends to the core plate (KMOCH teaches one or more core inserts mounted to the core plate [0090; 0171; Figs. 30-31].), the or each core insert comprising a molding surface describing an inner surface of a hollow body and an engagement taper between the molding surface and the first longitudinal end (KMOCH teaches each core insert has a molding surface of a hollow body [0039] and an engagement taper between the molding surface and the longitudinal end [Figs. 1-2, 0039; 0096].); wherein at least part of the engagement taper is located closer to the first longitudinal end than it is to the molding surface for inhibiting the core insert from tipping when the engagement taper is engaged to move or slide the core insert along the core plate (KMOCH teaches the engagement taper is located closer to the first longitudinal end than it is to the molding surface [Figs. 1-2, 15; 0096; 0130].).
Regarding claim 2, KMOCH teaches: wherein the or each core insert is mounted to the core plate by fastening means operable (KMOCH teaches the core insert is mounted to the core plate by a lock ring (111) [0090]. KMOCH also teaches a stop member [0165].), when the assembly is in an assembled configuration, to secure the or each core insert from a floating condition, in which the or each core insert is able to move relative to the core plate along a sliding interface therebetween, to a fixed condition, in which the or each core insert is substantially immovable relative to the core plate (KMOCH teaches the lock ring is configured to retain the core insert to the core plate [0090]. KMOCH also teaches the stop member is configured to be slidably received through the stripper plate [00164-0165].).
Regarding claim 3, KMOCH teaches: wherein the or each core insert comprises a mounting portion for mounting the core insert to the core plate (KMOCH teaches a mounting portion for mounting the core insert to the core plate [Fig. 1; 0091].), the mounting portion comprising: a mounting flange at a first longitudinal end of the core insert (KMOCH shows the mounting portion (111) has flanges at a first longitudinal end of the core insert [Fig. 1; 0090]. KMOCH teaches a mold stack with mold insert halves (316, 318) [0132].), which is configured to receive the core insert fastener to secure the core insert to a core plate (KMOCH teaches the lock ring interaction with the cavity flange [0133].); and the engagement taper which cooperates with the second engagement taper of the stripper sleeve (KMOCH teaches the engagement taper cooperates with the stripper plate (0131-0133]. KMOCH teaches the lock ring has a tapered female seat [0039].); wherein the engagement taper is located between the molding surface and the mounting flange (KMOCH teaches the engagement taper is located between the molding surface and the mounting flange [Figs. 1, 16].).
Regarding claim 4, KMOCH teaches: wherein the mounting flange of the or each core has a radial dimension that is at least one third of the distance from the first longitudinal end to a longitudinal centre of the engagement taper (KMOCH shows the mounting flange (309) that has a radial dimension that is at least one third of the distance from the first longitudinal end to a longitudinal centre of the engagement taper [Fig. 19; 0155].).
Regarding claim 5, KMOCH teaches: wherein the mounting flange of the or each core has a radial dimension that is at least half of the distance from the first longitudinal end to a longitudinal centre of the engagement taper (KMOCH shows the mounting flange (309) that has a radial dimension that is at least half of the distance from the first longitudinal end to a longitudinal centre of the engagement taper [Fig. 19; 0155].).
Regarding claim 6, KMOCH teaches: wherein the mounting flange of the or each core has a radial dimension that is at least two thirds of the distance from the first longitudinal end to a longitudinal centre of the engagement taper (KMOCH shows the mounting flange (309) that has a radial dimension that is at least two thirds of the distance from the first longitudinal end to a longitudinal centre of the engagement taper [Fig. 19; 0155].).
Regarding claim 7, KMOCH teaches: at least one further mold plate (KMOCH shows further mold plates [Figs. 30-31; 0170-0171].); and one or more further mold inserts mounted to the or each further mold plate (KMOCH teaches mold inserts mounted onto the mold plate [Figs. 30-31; 0169-0171; 0091].), the or each further mold insert comprising an engagement taper (KMOCH teaches the mold insert (114) have engagement taper [0091; Fig. 1].); wherein, in the assembled configuration, the core plate is mounted to the further mold plate(s), with the fastening means therebetween, such that each core insert describes with a respective further mold insert at least part of a hollow body and the engagement taper of the or each core insert is in engagement directly or indirectly with the engagement taper of at least one of the further mold insert(s) (KMOCH teaches the core plate and core insert is mounted to the mold plate [0091; Fig. 1].).
Regarding claim 8, KMOCH teaches: wherein the further mold plates comprise: a cavity plate with one or more cavity inserts mounted thereto (KMOCH teaches a cavity plate and a plurality of cavity inserts mounted [0171].); a stripper plate between the core plate and cavity plate with one or more stripper sleeves mounted thereto (KMOCH teaches a stripper plate (125/116/118) between the core plate and cavity plate [Fig. 1; 0092; 0089].); the or each stripper sleeve comprising: a first side with a first engagement taper which cooperates with an engagement taper of the cavity insert (KMOCH shows the stripper sleeve has a first engagement taper [Fig. 34; 0177; Fig. 1; 0089].); and a second side with a second engagement taper which cooperates with the engagement taper of a core insert (KMOCH teaches the stripper sleeve has a second side with a second engagement taper with the core insert [Fig. 1; 0089].).
Regarding claim 9, KMOCH teaches: wherein the engagement taper of the core insert is a male taper and the second engagement taper of the stripper sleeve is a female taper which extends from the second side along at least half of the length of the stripper sleeve (KMOCH teaches the taper of the core insert extends towards the engagement taper of the stripper sleeve (116, 118) [Fig. 1; 0092; 0089].).
Regarding claim 10, KMOCH teaches: wherein the or each stripper sleeve is movable relative to the stripper plate (KMOCH teaches each stripper sleeve (116, 118) is movable relative to the stripper plate (125) [0092; Fig. 1].).
Regarding claim 11, KMOCH teaches: wherein the or each stripper sleeve is movable relative to the stripper plate across a first range of movement and the core insert is movable across a second range of movement relative to the core plate when it is in the floating condition, the second range of movement being greater than the first range of movement (KMOCH teaches the stripper sleeve (116, 118) is movable relative to the stripper plate (125) across a range of movement and the core insert (110) is movable in a second range when in the floating condition [0091-0092].).
Regarding claim 13, KMOCH teaches: a gate insert retaining plate mounted to the cavity plate (KMOCH teaches a gate insert retaining plate (108) mounted to the cavity plate (102) [0089; Fig. 25].); and one or more gate inserts mounted to the gate insert retaining plate in alignment with the or a respective cavity insert and cooperating therewith to describe a closed end of the hollow body (KMOCH teaches a gate insert (107) mounted to the gate insert retaining plate in alignment with the respective cavity insert (106) [Fig. 1; 0089].); wherein the gate insert retaining plate comprises one or more holes through its thickness and the or each hole is aligned with the or a respective hole in the cavity plate for allowing the tool to be inserted therethrough to access the core insert fastener (KMOCH teaches the gate insert retaining plate comprises a hole through its thickness aligned with a respective cavity plate [0089; 0128-0129].).
Regarding claim 14, KMOCH teaches: wherein the or each gate insert comprises an engagement taper which cooperates with an engagement taper of the or a respective cavity insert (KMOCH shows the gate insert (307) comprises an engagement taper which cooperates with an engagement taper of the respective cavity insert (306) [Fig. 15; 0129-0130].).
Regarding claim 17, KMOCH teaches: wherein the fastening means comprises a clamping mechanism operable to releasably clamp, in use, the core insert(s) to secure it or them from the floating condition to the fixed condition (KMOCH teaches clamping the mold [0175].).
Regarding claim 18, KMOCH teaches: wherein the clamping mechanism comprises an actuator (KMOCH teaches the clamping mechanism is an actuator [0175]).
Regarding claim 19, KMOCH teaches: wherein the actuator is operated hydraulically, pneumatically or magnetically (KMOCH teaches the actuator may be pneumatic or hydraulic [0175]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KMOCH et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0050476), hereinafter KMOCH, in view of BRADSHAW (WO 2020/118413 A1).
Regarding claim 12, KMOCH teaches: wherein the fastening means comprises a fastener (KMOCH teaches the core insert is mounted to the core plate by a lock ring (111) [0090].), but is silent as to: the or each further mold plate comprises one or more holes through its thickness and the or each hole is aligned with a respective core insert fastener for allowing a tool to be inserted therethrough to access the core insert fastener. In the same field of endeavor, injection molding, BRADSHAW teaches a mount plate (210) have one or more holes (216) through its thickness [Figs. 4-5, 43; pg. 15, lines 10-27]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KMOCH, by having the core plate with a hole through its thickness, as suggested by BRADSHAW, in order to secure the core inserts [pg. 15, lines 20-25].
Regarding claim 15, KMOCH teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: comprising a melt distributor to which the gate insert retaining plate is mounted or within which it is incorporated, wherein the or each gate insert is movable relative to the gate insert retaining plate to enable the or each gate insert to align with the or a respective cavity insert as the melt distributor is mounted, in use, to the cavity plate. In the same field of endeavor, injection molding, BRADSHAW teaches the gate insert retaining plate (pad) is threaded into the tool and is aligned with the melt distributor (3500) [pg. 36]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KMOCH, by having the gate inserting plate mounted to be movable relative to the gate to align with the melt distributor, as suggested by BRADSHAW, in order to receive the molten material and reduce wear [pg. 36, lines 15-30].
Regarding claim 16, BRADHSHAW further teaches: wherein the or each gate insert is mounted to the gate insert retaining plate by a fastener which is operable, when the assembly is in the assembled configuration, to secure the or each gate insert from a floating condition, in which it is able to move relative to the gate insert retaining plate, to a fixed condition, in which it is substantially immovable relative to the gate insert retaining plate (BRADSHAW teaches the gate insert (3450) is mounted to the gate insert pad with a spigot in order to be put in a fixed position [pgs. 35-36].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KMOCH, by having the gate insert be fixed to the gate inserting plate, as suggested by BRADSHAW, in order to maintain alignment [pg. 36, lines 15-20].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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 at (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 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
