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/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 20-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10-12, 14-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be corrected to “for injection of the melted plastic material” (line 11), “in a cavity wall of [[to]] the first cavity section” (lines 24-25).
Claim 10 should be corrected to “at least two thin spots arranged transversal to the flow path and behind each other in the follow path
Claim 11 should be corrected to “by the constriction[[s]]” (lines 2-3), “in [[the]] a form” (line 3), “a first outer hinge strap and a second outer hinge strap laterally spaced apart from each other with respect to a center axis and comprising two thin spots arranged behind each other” (lines 4-6), “an inner hinge strap arranged on the center axis and comprising the at least one thin spot” (lines 8-9).
Claim 12 should be corrected to “[[a]] the first sensor arrangement” (line 3) and “[[a]] the second sensor arrangement” (line 4).
Claim 14 should be corrected to “[[the]] a lateral width” (line 3).
Claim 15 should be corrected to “during the operation forms a part” (lines 1-3).
Claim 16 should be corrected to “[[the]] a range” (line 4).
Claim 17 should be corrected to “the at least one injection mold forming a part of the injection molding device” (line 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-19 recite the claimed limitations with numeral symbols presented in Specification. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” See MPEP 2111.01 II. For the purpose of examination, the numeral symbols would NOT be considered to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim for further clarification of the recited limitations.
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 2-4, 6-15, and 18-19 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 2 recites the limitations “the viscosity” (line 3) and “the area of the constriction” (lines 3-4). There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitations would be interpreted as “a viscosity” and “an area of the constriction,” respectively.
Claims 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the geometry” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “a geometry.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the change” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “a change.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the specific plastic material” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “a specific plastic material.”
Claims 7, 9, and 14 recite the phrase "in particular" (claim 7 line 4; claim 9 line 3; claim 14 lines 3-4). The phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, the phrase and following limitation(s) would not be considered.
Claims 8-11 recite the limitations “at least one thin spot” (claim 8 line 2), “the at least one thin spot” (claim 9 line 4), “at least two thin spots” (claim 10 line 2), “two thin spots” (claim 11 line 5), “at least one thin spot” (claim 11 line 8), respectively. The underlined term “thin” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Also, it is not clear whether (1) the “at least one thin spot” is thinner than the first cavity section and/or the second cavity section as the term “constriction” already implies to be narrowing, or (2) the narrower constriction (than the first/second cavity sections) comprises at least one thinner spot than other spots within the constriction. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claims 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the constriction comprises at least two thin spots” in line 2. It is unclear whether the underlined limitation “at least two thin spots” (1) include “at least one thin spot” (claim 8 line 2) (i.e., requiring at least two thin spots) or (2) does not include the “at least one thin spot” (claim 8 line 2) (i.e., requiring at least three thin spots). For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “two thin spots” in line 5. It is unclear whether the limitation means (1) two thin spots of the “at least one thin spot” (claim 8 line 2), (2) two thin spots of the “at least two thin spots” (claim 10 line 2), or (3) another new two thin spots. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “at least one of the constrictions comprises with respect to the flow path of the melted plastic material a first sensor arrangement before the constriction and a second sensor arrangement after the constriction” in lines 1-4. The limitation renders the claim unclear as the at least one constriction literally cannot comprise the first/second sensor arrangement which are before or after the at least one constriction. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “the first sensor arrangement and the second sensor arrangement are arranged before and after the at least one constriction, respectively, with respect to the flow path of the melted plastic material.”
Claims 15 and 18 recite the limitations “a cavity wall of the cavity” (lines 1-3) and “a cavity wall” (line 3), respectively. It is unclear whether the underlined limitation means (1) a cavity wall of the first cavity section wherein the first sensor arrangement is arranged (claim 1 lines 24-25), (2) a cavity wall of the second cavity section wherein the second sensor arrangement is arranged (claim 1 lines 25-26), or (3) another new cavity wall. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 19 recites the phrase “preferably” (line 3 and 6, respectively). The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, the phrase and following limitation(s) would not be considered.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
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.
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions.
The limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details.
The limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) for further details.
Claims 1-9, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 5,645,779 A) in view of Altonen (US 20160059461 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches injection molding device (fig. 3) comprising
a. at least one injection mold (mold 14) with a first mold half and a second mold half during operation being displaceable with respect to each other in a first direction (z) between a closed position and an open position (col. 4 lines 39-43: mold 14 including a plurality of divided molds which are fastened together to define a cavity 14a of a predetermined configuration; figs. 3, 4);
b. the first mold half and the second mold half forming in the closed position at least one cavity there between suitable to receive melted plastic material (col. 4 lines 39-43: mold 14 including a plurality of divided molds which are fastened together to define a cavity 14a of a predetermined configuration; col. 5 lines 21-31: the plasticized thermoplastic resin or the molten resin NI fed into the cavity 14a of the mold 14; figs. 3, 4, 6A-C);
c. the at least one cavity comprising a first cavity section (upper portion of the cavity 14a as shown in fig. 4) and a second cavity section (lower portion of the cavity 14a as shown in fig. 4) interconnected to the first cavity section by at least one constriction (a portion of the cavity 14a as shown in fig. 4, corresponding to a thin-walled hinge 53 of a molded article as shown in fig. 1) (col. 4 lines 39-42: cavity 14; col. 3 lines 25-42: a molded article protector 50; figs. 1, 4);
d. an injection nozzle opening into the first cavity section in the closed position for injection of melted plastic material into the first cavity section and travels from there via the at least one constriction into the second cavity section (col. 4 lines 4 – col. 5 line 31: the plasticized thermoplastic resin or the molten resin M1 accumulated in the front of the screw head 12a is fed into the injection gates 16A, 16B through the sprue 15 and runner 16 from the cylinder nozzle 11a and then into the cavity 14a of the mold 14; figs. 3, 4, 6C);
e. [wherein a first sensor arrangement is arranged in a cavity wall of to the first cavity section and a second sensor arrangement is arranged in a cavity wall of the second cavity section].
Matsumoto does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, but Altonen teaches the limitation(s) as follows:
Altonen teaches apparatuses and methods for injection molding, in particularly for performing injection molding at constant injection pressure to enhance the quality of injection molded products ([0001], fig. 1). Altonen teaches that a first sensor arrangement 52 is arranged in a cavity wall of to the first cavity section (upstream of the flow filling challenge wherein a thinner wall thickness is formed) and a second sensor arrangement 52’ is arranged in a cavity wall of the second cavity section (downstream of the flow filling challenge wherein a thinner wall thickness is formed) ([0015, 0017, 0084-0086, 0090]; figs. 7, 9).
In the same field of endeavor of injection molding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the injection molding apparatus, comprising a cavity having a thinner region for forming a thin-walled hinge in an injection-molded product, of Matsumoto to have sensor(s) in respective regions of upstream and downstream of the thinner region, or additionally on the thinner region as taught by Altonen in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of measuring temperature, pressure, or viscosity of the injection material at the respective regions so as to closely monitor the conditions of the injection material near the thinner region (i.e., flow-filling challenging region) and to feedback for controlling the molding process for appropriate adjustment or correction (Altonen: derived from: [0001, 0063]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 1, wherein the first sensor arrangement 52 and the second sensor arrangement 52’ are interlinked to a controller configured to determine during injection the viscosity of the melted plastic material in the area of the constriction (Altonen: [0063]: when pressure or temperature of the thermoplastic material is measured by the sensor 52, this sensor 52 may send a signal indicative of the pressure or the temperature to the controller 50 to provide a target pressure for the controller 50 to maintain in the mold cavity 32 (or in the nozzle 26) as the fill is completed, and this signal may generally be used to control the molding process, such that variations in material viscosity, mold temperatures, melt temperatures, and other variations influencing filling rate, are adjusted by the controller 50; [0063]: While the sensor 52 may directly measure the melt pressure, the sensor 52 may also indirectly measure the melt pressure by measuring other characteristics of the molten thermoplastic material 24, such as temperature, viscosity, flow rate, etc., which are indicative of melt pressure; figs. 1, 7, 9). Here, when each sensor 52 of upstream and downstream is configured to determine viscosity or variations in material viscosity, it is implied or at least obvious that a viscosity in the area of the constriction (i.e., between the positions of the upstream/downstream sensor) would be determined or estimated by respective viscosity values as the material property of viscosity continuously changes or maintained over the melt flow between the two sensing regions.
Regarding claim 3, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to determine the viscosity as a relative value of the geometry of the constriction (Altonen: [0063]: when pressure or temperature of the thermoplastic material is measured by the sensor 52, this sensor 52 may send a signal indicative of the pressure or the temperature to the controller 50 to provide a target pressure for the controller 50 to maintain in the mold cavity 32 (or in the nozzle 26) as the fill is completed, and this signal may generally be used to control the molding process, such that variations in material viscosity, mold temperatures, melt temperatures, and other variations influencing filling rate, are adjusted by the controller 50; [0064]: While the sensor 52 may directly measure the melt pressure, the sensor 52 may also indirectly measure the melt pressure by measuring other characteristics of the molten thermoplastic material 24, such as temperature, viscosity, flow rate, etc., which are indicative of melt pressure, and the sensor 52 need not be located directly in the nozzle 26, but rather the sensor 52 may be located at any location within the injection system 12 or mold 28 that is fluidly connected with the nozzle 26; [0084-0086]: a third sensor 52’’ on the transition area; figs. 1, 7, 9). Here, when each sensor 52 of upstream and downstream is configured to determine viscosity or variations in material viscosity, it is implied or at least obvious that a viscosity in the area of the constriction (i.e., between the positions of the upstream/downstream sensor) would be determined or estimated by respective viscosity values upon the distance therebetween (e.g., as a relative value of the length (i.e., dimension) of the constriction) as the material property of viscosity continuously changes or maintained over the melt flow between the two sensing regions.
Regarding claim 4, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to determine the change of the relative viscosity between two injection cycles (Altonen: [0063]: when pressure or temperature of the thermoplastic material is measured by the sensor 52, this sensor 52 may send a signal indicative of the pressure or the temperature to the controller 50 to provide a target pressure for the controller 50 to maintain in the mold cavity 32 (or in the nozzle 26) as the fill is completed, and this signal may generally be used to control the molding process, such that variations in material viscosity, mold temperatures, melt temperatures, and other variations influencing filling rate, are adjusted by the controller 50, and these adjustments may be made immediately during the molding cycle, or corrections can be made in subsequent cycles, and several signals may be averaged over a number of cycles and then used to make adjustments to the molding process by the controller 50; [0064]: While the sensor 52 may directly measure the melt pressure, the sensor 52 may also indirectly measure the melt pressure by measuring other characteristics of the molten thermoplastic material 24, such as temperature, viscosity, flow rate, etc., which are indicative of melt pressure; the sensor 52 need not be located directly in the nozzle 26, but rather the sensor 52 may be located at any location within the injection system 12 or mold 28 that is fluidly connected with the nozzle 26, and the sensor 52 need not be located directly in the nozzle 26, but rather the sensor 52 may be located at any location within the injection system 12 or mold 28 that is fluidly connected with the nozzle 26; figs. 1, 7, 9). Here, numerous measurements of sensing signals indicative of the pressure, the temperature, or the viscosity are feedbacked to the controller for adjustments/corrections of injection molding process within a cycle, for subsequent cycles. Thus, it is implied or at least obvious that the sensed signals or determined values are obtained and processed in a number of cycles including two injection cycles.
Regarding claim 5, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 1, wherein the first sensor arrangement and the second sensor arrangement each comprise a temperature sensor and/or a pressure sensor (Altonen: [0084-0086, 0090]: first sensor 52 and second sensor 52’; [0063-0064]: pressure or temperature of the thermoplastic material is measured by the sensor 52).
Regarding claim 6, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to maintain the viscosity within a predetermined range of temperature and pressure in relation to a geometry of the constriction (Altonen: [0063]: when pressure or temperature of the thermoplastic material is measured by the sensor 52, this sensor 52 may send a signal indicative of the pressure or the temperature to the controller 50 to provide a target pressure for the controller 50 to maintain in the mold cavity 32 (or in the nozzle 26) as the fill is completed, and this signal may generally be used to control the molding process, such that variations in material viscosity, mold temperatures, melt temperatures, and other variations influencing filling rate, are adjusted by the controller 50; [0064]: While the sensor 52 may directly measure the melt pressure, the sensor 52 may also indirectly measure the melt pressure by measuring other characteristics of the molten thermoplastic material 24, such as temperature, viscosity, flow rate, etc., which are indicative of melt pressure, and the sensor 52 need not be located directly in the nozzle 26, but rather the sensor 52 may be located at any location within the injection system 12 or mold 28 that is fluidly connected with the nozzle 26, and the sensor 52 need not be located directly in the nozzle 26, but rather the sensor 52 may be located at any location within the injection system 12 or mold 28 that is fluidly connected with the nozzle 26; [0084-0086, 0090]: maintaining the viscosity so as to fill a thinner wall thickness region; figs. 1, 7, 9).
Regarding claim 7, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to maintain the viscosity depending on the specific plastic material injected, such that a magnitude of an adjustment of the operation is adapted to the specific plastic material, in particular to biological and/or recycled plastic materials (Altonen: [0063]: when pressure or temperature of the thermoplastic material is measured by the sensor 52, this sensor 52 may send a signal indicative of the pressure or the temperature to the controller 50 to provide a target pressure for the controller 50 to maintain in the mold cavity 32 (or in the nozzle 26) as the fill is completed, and this signal may generally be used to control the molding process, such that variations in material viscosity, mold temperatures, melt temperatures, and other variations influencing filling rate, are adjusted by the controller 50; [0064]: While the sensor 52 may directly measure the melt pressure, the sensor 52 may also indirectly measure the melt pressure by measuring other characteristics of the molten thermoplastic material 24, such as temperature, viscosity, flow rate, etc., which are indicative of melt pressure, and the sensor 52 need not be located directly in the nozzle 26, but rather the sensor 52 may be located at any location within the injection system 12 or mold 28 that is fluidly connected with the nozzle 26, and the sensor 52 need not be located directly in the nozzle 26, but rather the sensor 52 may be located at any location within the injection system 12 or mold 28 that is fluidly connected with the nozzle 26; [0072]: consideration of a material specific property such as a melting temperature so as to derive recommend melting temperature in a given pressure range; [0084-0086, 0090]: maintaining the viscosity so as to fill a thinner wall thickness region; figs. 1, 7, 9). Here, it is implied that the adjustment/correction by the controller based on the sensed signal from the sensors considers the type of the plastic material, for example, a melting temperature of the plastic material so as to facilitate filling of the plastic material within cavity without unfilled regions.
Regarding claim 8, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 1, wherein the constriction comprises at least one thin spot extending transversal with respect to a flow path of the melted plastic material (Matsumoto: a portion of cavity corresponding to a thin-walled hinge 53; figs. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 9, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 8, wherein the constriction comprises at least one geometry for forming a film hinge in the plastic material received in the cavity, in particular the geometry is implemented as the at least one thin spot spanning a total width w of the constriction traversal with respect to the flow path (Matsumoto: a portion of cavity corresponding to a thin-walled hinge 53; figs. 1, 4, 5, 8A-B).
Regarding claim 14, modified Matsumoto does not specifically teach that the first sensor arrangement and the second sensor arrangement are arranged between 30% to 70% of the lateral width of the respective constriction, in particular 50% of the lateral width of the respective constriction. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the first/second sensor arrangements are arranged within a lateral width of the constriction, for example, in the middle point, in order to accurately measure and determine viscosity while avoiding high friction or slow moving near the walls, in particular, due to the effect of a transition area (before/after/on the constriction), and providing the most stable and representative measuring.
Regarding claim 15, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 1, wherein a front face of the first and/or the second sensor arrangement at least partially during operation forms part of a cavity wall of the cavity (Matsumoto: [0064]: the sensor 52 is a pressure sensor that measures (directly or indirectly) melt pressure of the molten thermoplastic material 24, and the sensor 52 may be located at any location within the injection system 12 or mold 28 that is fluidly connected with the nozzle 26; [0084-0086, 0090]; figs. 1, 7, 9).
Regarding claim 17, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 1, wherein at least one injection mold forming part of the injection molding device is a production mold or a test mold (Matsumoto: [0063-0064]: these adjustments/corrections may be made immediately during the molding cycle, or corrections can be made in subsequent cycles). Here, the limitation is directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 18, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 1, wherein the first sensor arrangement and/or the second sensor arrangement is arranged in a cavity wall adjacent to or at the constriction (Matsumoto: [0015, 0017, 0084-0086, 0090]; figs. 7, 9).
Regarding claim 19, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 18, wherein a. the first sensor arrangement is arranged a certain distance a1 apart from the constriction, said distance a1 is preferably greater than a diameter of a sensor tip of the first sensor arrangement; and/or b. the second sensor arrangement is arranged a certain distance a2 apart from the constriction, said distance a2 is preferably greater than a diameter of a sensor tip of the second sensor arrangement (Matsumoto: [0015, 0017, 0084-0086, 0090]; figs. 7, 9).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 5,645,779 A) and Altonen (US 20160059461 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8, and further in view of Gelston (A blog by Gelston, “A Brief Introduction to Living Hinges in Plastic Injection Molding,” available at https://www.aimprocessing.com/blog/a-brief-introduction-to-living-hinges-in-plastic-injection-molding, posted on 10/26/2017).
Regarding claim 10, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 8, but does not specifically teach that the constriction comprises at least two thin spots arranged transversal to and in flow path direction behind each other
Gelston teaches a living hinge, wherein a thin flexible piece of material is connected between a base and a cap, allowing the cap to be bent out of the way as the contents of the container are used and then returned to a closed position, and the living hinges can be created by plastic injection molding (page 1). A known simplest form of living hinge is straight hinge, and it can be short or long and can also be segmented (e.g., three short segments that work together as one hinge) (page 1; an article having three short segments work together as one hinge as shown in figure of page 1).
In the same field of endeavor of forming an injection molded article having a hinge, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the injection molding apparatus, comprising a cavity having a thinner region for forming a corresponding thin-walled hinge in an injection-molded product, of Matsumoto to a known configuration to have the thinner region to be segmented to plural portions (e.g., two or three short segments for one hinge) as taught by Gelson in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a hinged product allowing to tailor the hinge’s flexibility, strength, (snap-locking) functionality, and/or durability to a specific product (Gelson: derived from page 2). Upon the modification, modified Matsumoto teaches that the constriction comprises at least two thin spots arranged transversal to and in flow path direction behind each other (Matsumoto: figs. 1, 4; Gelson: an article having two or three short segments work together as one hinge as shown in figure of page 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 10, wherein the first cavity section and the second cavity section are interconnected to each other by constrictions in the form of
a. a first and a second outer hinge strap laterally spaced apart from each other and a center axis x comprising two thin spots arranged behind each other and transversal to the flow path of the melted plastic material (Matsumoto: figs. 1, 4; Gelson: an article having three short segments work together as one hinge as shown in figure of page 1) and/or
b. an inner hinge strap arranged on the center axis x comprising at least one thin spot arranged transversal to the flow path of the melted plastic material (id.).
Regarding claim 12, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 11, wherein at least one of the constrictions comprises with respect to the flow path of the melted plastic material a first sensor arrangement before the constriction and a second sensor arrangement after the constriction (Altonen: [0015, 0017, 0084-0086, 0090]; figs. 7, 9).
Regarding claim 13, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 11, wherein the injection nozzle is arranged on the center axis x (Matsumoto: an axis straight down from the cylinder nozzle 11a as show in fig. 3; of note, here, the axis meets the limitation regarding the central axis x of claim 11 (a), wherein a first and a second outer hinge straps are laterally spaced apart from each other with respect to the central axis x (i.e., into a penetrating direction as shown in fig. 3; figs. 1, 4, 5).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 5,645,779 A) and Altonen (US 20160059461 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8, and further in view of Parnaby (US 4,624,132).
Regarding claim 16, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 1, wherein the first sensor arrangement and the second sensor arrangement are arranged spaced apart by a distance along a flow path of the melted plastic material (Altonen: [0084-0090]; figs. 7, 9), but does not specifically teach the distance is in the range of two to five times of a functional length L of the constriction.
Parnaby teaches an apparatus and a method of determination of viscosity of a fluids such as polymer melts for extrusion and injection molding shaping processes (abstract, col. 1 lines 1-15). The apparatus includes a conduit having a converging portion, a diverging portion, and an intervening constant cross-section portion therebetween continuously connecting them, and fluid pressure measurement (a, b, c) at each of the portion (claim 5; figs. 1, 2). Parnaby teaches that the distance (i.e., between a and c, 91.5 mm) is in the range of two to five times (i.e., 2.6 times) of a functional length L (i.e., 35 mm) of the constriction.
Modified Matsumoto teaches a method of measuring a condition of molten material such as temperature, pressure, and viscosity within the molding cavity especially in flow-filling challenging constriction by installing sensors respectively upstream and downstream of the constriction so as to control the injection molding process (Altonen: [0063-0064, 0084-0090]; figs. 7, 9). Parnaby teaches that a method of determination of extensional viscosity and elasticity of a molten polymer making pressure measurements on flows of the fluid through an apparatus which includes a fluid delivery system communicating with an open ended die, the cavity of the die being shaped so as to include a converging portion and a diverging portion, as being a part of injection molding machine (abstract; col. 8 lines 28-20; figs. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the positions of the first and second sensor arrangements of modified Matsumoto to be apart in a distance about 2-3 times of the length of constriction as taught by Parnaby in order to obtain known results or reasonable expectation of successful results of more accurate determination of viscosity of a polymer melt.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (US 20220040897 A1) teaches injection mold apparatus including a mold and at least one sensor adapted to sense at least one of a temperature and a pressure in a mold cavity (abstract, figs. 1-4).
Bader (US 20100252944 A1) teaches a method for monitoring, documenting, and/or controlling an injection molding machine having an injection molding tool into which a melt is introduced, wherein a viscosity of the melt in the injection molding tool is determined directly (abstract, figs. 1, 2, 4).
Bader (US 5,993,704 A) teaches a method for determining the switchover point in the production of a die casting by having two pressure sensors are arranged successively at intervals in a flow direction of inflowing material (abstract, figs. 1-3).
Hettinga (US 5,762,852 A) (abstract, figs. 1-5), Cha (US 6,667,004 B2) (abstract, figs. 17-20), and Cowan (US 2,687,157 A) (abstract, figs. 5-7) teach an injection molding apparatus for forming a hinged product.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM.
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 (Sam) 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744