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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-15, the claims are supposedly dependent upon claim 1. However, the claims are listed as of “claim one” which is unclear if this particularly to that of claim 1. See MPEP 608.01(n) for examples of format for dependent claims. It is suggested that the dependent claims to replace “of claim one” with “of claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
the at least 48 injection stations,
at least one rabbet joint in rig and shaft,
at least one double-walled tanker,
at least one thermostat connected to the tank,
at least one dehumidifier containing silica gel,
at least one filler pump and at least one level gauge,
at least one controlling panel which is equipped with a color monitor,
at least one mixer,
at least one pouring head,
at least one tank containing methylene chloride,
at least one pneumatic system and
at least one silicone oil spray system.
Instead, the claim lists the various elements in a list whereupon, one skilled in the art lacks the nexus between elements that would be able to construe how the invention would be connected.
Claims 2-15 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.
Claims 2-15 recites the limitation "the automatic polyurethane injection machine" in the preambles. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The parent claim is directed in the preamble of the invention of rotary device, and only states of injection stations. There are no teachings of an automatic polyurethane injection machine in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MULLER (GB 1338206 A, see IDS) in view of NUSSBAUMER (US 4005641 A), and further in view of PONTIFF (US 5202069 A, see IDS), PALMER (US 2016/0332218 A1), NAGASAWA (US 2006/0249880 A1), BOHNERT (US 2007/0228600 A1), AMOS (US 4662307 A), ARAI (US 2002/0014709 A1), SALTEL (US 3856444).
Wherein, the MULLER invention teaches of the rotary device (see Figs. 1 and 2) for shoe sole molding, and includes multiple injection stations, see 3, wherein, the injection assembly 4 is mounted upon a rotatable cantilever 20 with nozzle 14 for each of the mold inlets, and moves from one molding unit to the next, see lines 11-15. Further, tanks 16, 17 are provided for supplying the molding material along with a control cabinet 19. The molding is directed to expandable polyurethane soles, see lines 16-22.
Re: 1, The invention of rotary device for producing shoe soles using a central rig (see disc-plate 15, see Figs. 1 and 3 with rotatable cantilever 20) with 360 degree movement and freedom of manual sectorial movement contains
[at least 48] injection stations (see molding units 3),
[at least one rabbet joint in rig and shaft],
at least one [double-walled] tanker (see tanks 16, 17, for plastic material or its components, lines 63-65),
[at least one thermostat connected to the tank],
[at least one dehumidifier containing silica gel],
[at least one filler pump and at least one level gauge],
at least one controlling panel [which is equipped with a color monitor] (see teaching of control cabinet 19 that contains essential elements of the control device, see lines 67-69),
at least one mixer (MULLER teaches of tanks that would flow to the injection of the materials to the mold, whereby, mixing is implied),
at least one pouring head (see teaching of the mold inlets of mold units 3),
at least one tank [containing methylene chloride],
[at least one pneumatic system],
[and at least one silicone oil spray system].
MULLER does not teach of the various features such as number of stations, the rabbet joint, the double walled tanker, thermostat, dehumidifier, filler pump, color monitor, pneumatic system, and silicone oil spray system. These are all various known features in the molding arts that are used for improvements of the injection molding system of MULLER.
Regarding the rabbet joint, shaft, and rig (which is seen as the entire system being used), these are seen as elements of a rotation device. As seen in the molding arts, the NUSSBAUMER reference that teaches of grooves 5c, ribs 6d, that form coupling and connect for rotation in with the drive shaft 6, see teaching in apparatus for rotating, see Figure of NUSSBAUMER, see also Col. 4, line 59 to Col. 5, line 5. Wherein, the claimed rig is the overall rig that MULLER teaches for the operation of the arm that rotates to the different injection stations.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the rotation of the injection arm of the rig as taught by MULLER with the features for the rotational shaft as taught by NUSSBAUMER, as this is seen under KSR, see MPEP 2143, wherein this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, in this case of the rotational features taught by NUSSBAUMER into the rotational molding device of MULLER.
Regarding the number of injection stations, this is number that is viewed as a duplication of parts, in regards to the stations. Already, MULLER teaches a plurality of station, see Fig. 3, and wherein, the particular number is readily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art with predictable results. Here, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the plural injection stations already taught in MULLER with the desired number of injection stations, in this case of 48, with the predictable results of being able to forming multiple soles during the operation of the apparatus.
Regarding the double walled tank used in molding operations, see in BOHNERT that teaches of the tanks 44, 46 that are double walled to provide extra protection against accidental release of solvent and contaminants, see [0034].
Here, the concept of using double walled tanks are known in the molding arts, as seen in BOHNERT. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the tanks of MULLER with the double walled features as taught in BOHNERT for extra protection of the tanks.
Regarding the pouring head and tank and mixer, see teaching by PONTIFF that teaches of known features for sole forming at multiple stations (see Fig. 7 and Col. 1, lines 8-11) and polymer includes polyurethanes (see Col. 3, lines 49-57), and regarding the pouring head, see teaching in Fig. 5 of MULLER of alternate manner of providing material to the stations, and further of the mixer, the extrusion mixer of PONTIFF teaches of the known mixing of the materials particularly for foamed polyurethanes.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the invention of MULLER with the mixer and pouring head of PONTIFF, as this is seen under KSR, see MPEP 2143, wherein this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, in this case of the processing of polyurethane for the molding system of PONTIFF into the device of MULLER.
Regarding the mixer, the polyol, and of the dehumidifying dryer, these are known features of the polyurethane molding. Here, the NAGASAWA reference teaches of polyurethane molding and further teaches of the mixer for the polyol, see [0048], and of the use of dehumidifying dryer
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the invention of MULLER with the mixer and dehumidifier of NAGASAWA, as this is seen under KSR, see MPEP 2143, wherein this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, in this case of the process of polyurethane in the molding system of NAGASAWA into the device of MULLER.
Regarding the tank with methylene chloride, this is a known cleaning agent used on molds, as seen in AMOS, see Col. 8, lines 20-25.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the invention of MULLER with methylene chloride as taught AMOS for washing/cleaning the desired mold parts, as this is seen under KSR, see MPEP 2143, wherein this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, in this case of the cleaning of molds using methylene chloride of YOKOE to the molds of MULLER.
Regarding the dehumidifier, see teaching by ARAI which teaches in the related foam molding, wherein, the control of the moisture is desired in the pre-processing stage, see [0046], wherein, the use of silica gel, see claim 2 of ARAI.
Regarding the filler pump and level gauge, see teaching by ARAI of material feed pump, see [0046, 0126, 0127], this being known in the control of the material feed in the system and would be equivalent to the filler pump. Wherein, see claim 13 of ARAI of the various sensors to maintain operating conditions which would include the material feed which implies the tanks.
Regarding the claimed thermostat, see teaching by ARAI, see [0045] of controlling the temperature of the resin material and of the other materials fed for processing, see also teaching of temperature sensors, see claims 13, 15, and 16 of ARAI, wherein, the there is also a temperature controller. As seen, it is known in the art as shown by ARAI of maintaining the desired temperature of the materials in the mold system.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the invention of MULLER with filling pump, dehumidifier and thermostat as taught ARAI for ensuring the desired conditions for the materials supplied to molding, as this is seen under KSR, see MPEP 2143, wherein this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, in this case of the maintaining desired material conditions of ARAI to the molding device of MULLER.
Regarding the color monitor, the concept in using the controllers having a color monitor is well known in the molding arts. As seen in HEHL, the circuitry cabinet of the injection molding machine includes a computer, keyboard, and color monitor, see Col. 1, lines 24-35. Here, these are known use of display elements in the control device for an injection molding machine which are readily applicable to the reference to yield predictable results.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified MULLER with a color monitor as taught by HEHL as a known feature in the controlling panel/display. As this is seen under KSR, see MPEP 2143, wherein this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, in this case of color monitor of HEHL to the control panel/display of MULLER.
Regarding the pneumatic system, SALTEL teaches in the relevant field of endeavor of molding of soles in molds with polyurethane, and arranged on a rotating carousel see teaching of the pneumatic circuit to supply to the jack 119, 237, see Col. 3, lines 37-64, Col. 4, lines 50-56, Col. 5, lines 43-45, Col. 6, lines 16-25.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified MULLER with the operation of the devices including pneumatic system as taught by SALTEL allowing for operation of the system.
Regarding the silicone oil spraying system, see teaching of NUN, see [0002], of the known use of silicone oils for spraying the inner sides of the injection mold as these are used for aid in demolding.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified MULLER with the silicone oil spraying system as taught by NUN to aid in demolding.
Re: 2 (upon 1) in which the raw materials are poured into a double-walled tank and possible moisture is absorbed by dehumidification filters; The materials are then mixed together by a mixer, the amount of mixing of the materials is also controlled and adjusted by the monitor; After mixing, the material is directed to the pouring head and poured into the mold; Then, after filling a mold, the next station is identified by the shaft and encoder and the rig moves to the next station. (This is seen as an operation of the modified MULLER with the taught features being shown above.)
Re: 3 (upon 1) in which there is possibility to install 48 stations. (see teaching of MULLER above regarding the plurality of stations which is a duplication of parts)
Re: 4 (upon 1) in which to eliminate the high force to move the shaft to the sides during injection, a rabbet joint is used in the rig and the shaft. (see teaching of the rotational features of the joint with the groove and rib for the shaft as taught by NUSSBAUMER.)
Re: 6 (upon 1) in which there is double-walled tank which the raw materials are poured into them. (see teaching by MULLER in view of NAGASAWA regarding the mixer, whereby the further teaching of double walled tanks taught by BOHNERT would ensure the mixer tank would be protected.)
Re: 7 (upon 1) in which the existed tank is equipped with thermostats that is controlled by the central computer. (see teaching of temperature sensor and controller as taught by ARAI above.)
Re: 8 (upon 1) in which the tanks are equipped with a dehumidifier filters containing silica gel in order to absorb possible moisture. (see teaching by ARAI above.)
Re: 9 (upon 1) in which tanks are equipped with a material filling pump and a level gauge. (see teaching by ARAI, wherein the teaching of the additional sensors, see claim 13 of ARAI, which one skilled in the art recognizes as maintaining the supply in the tanks.)
Re: 10 (upon 1) in which the production process is controlled by main controlling panel of the device that is equipped with color monitor. (see teaching of HEHL above.)
Re: 11 (upon 1) in which the device contains a mixer, which consists of a special tank and mixer for mixing polyol materials. (see teaching by PONTIFF above.)
Re: 12 (upon 1) in which device contains a pouring material head into the mold. (see teaching of PONTIFF above.)
Re: 13 (upon 1) in which there is a methylene chloride tank to wash the top of the head. (see teaching of AMOS of cleaning the mold, wherein, this cleaning of the of the head is recognized as an obvious cleaning of the device in the modified MULLER device.)
Re: 14 (upon 1) in which the injection stations are equipped with a pneumatics jack which the inhibiter force of it is 4000 N. (see teaching of pneumatic jacks of SALTEL, further regarding the inhibiter, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the application of inhibiters to limit pressure operating conditions that may damage the parts.)
Re: 15 (upon 1) in which a system with a spray tank made of silicone oil is used to spray the mold. (see teaching of NUN of the known process of silicone oil spraying to the mold, and thereby one skilled in the art would recognize the various elements such as a spray tank for spraying the silicone oil.)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified MULLER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PALMER (US 2016/0332218 A1).
Re: 5 (upon 1) in which the detection of stations is done by shaft and encoder and the rig is locked on the next station after moving.
The modified MULLER does not teach of the encoder.
In regards to the encoder, the PALMER reference teaches of molding machines that includes a processing with a rotary device. Here, the system includes a control system with encoder outputs and use to lock the drum in place [0039], which would correlate the concept of locking the rotational device of the modified MULLER, and wherein PALMER teaches of the use of shaft encoders [0045, 0046]. Here, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the use of the shaft encoders of PALMER to aid in identifying the positions of the rotation of the injection of MULLER in view of NUSSBAUMER to be for the respective injection molds.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shaft of the modified MULLER with the use of encoders as taught by PALMER allowing for locking of the arm at the desired positions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form.
CHEN (US 10780637 B2) reference teaches of a related rotation of the rotation mechanism 201A, with the shaft and bearing, see Fig. 6, which would encompass the claimed rabbet joint (as the placement of the bearing would encompass this, as the rabbet is known as a recess or groove cut).
THOMAS (US 2016/0311568 A1) teaches of the use of a mixing and cooling tank that includes a double walled vessel, see [0037], the double walled tank being known for providing control of the temperature/conditions of the material in the molding system.
GOEBEL (US 2014/0175701 A1) teaches of multiple station for molds for reactive plastic molding, particularly of polyurethane. The molds traversing on a track.
HERMANT (US 2020/0055220 A1) teaches of a molds on a rotary indext turret, moving between molding stations.
ROBBINS (US 3663139 A) teaches of a sole mold member 64 that is slidably mounted on a base plate 62, see Figs. 1 and 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744