DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 06/16/2026, claims 1 and 3-21 are pending. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-19 are currently amended. Claim 2 is canceled, and no claim is newly added. Claims 20-21 are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 3-19 are considered in this Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 should be corrected to “at least one of:” (line 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 3-19 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 3-4, 6-7, and 9 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 3, 6, and 7 are unclear as being dependent from claim 2, which is canceled. For the purpose of examination, the claims would be considered as being dependent from claim 1.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 3.
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.
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, 3-9, 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], and
f. [wherein the first sensor arrangement (15) and the second sensor arrangement (16) are interlinked to a controller (17) configured to determine during injection a viscosity of the melted plastic material in an area of the at least one constriction (11)].
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), and 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 would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing a viscosity in the area of the constriction (i.e., between the positions of the upstream/downstream sensors) would be determined or estimated by respective viscosity values in consideration of geometry of constriction as the material property of viscosity continuously changes or maintained over the melt flow between the two sensing regions, so as to control molding process based on variations in material viscosity, mold temperature, melt temperature, melt pressure, and filling rate.
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 3, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the viscosity as a relative value of the geometry of the at least one 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 would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing a viscosity in the area of the constriction (i.e., between the positions of the upstream/downstream sensors) 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 a 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, at least, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention 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 1, wherein the controller is configured to maintain the viscosity within a predetermined range of temperature and pressure in relation to a geometry of the at least one 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 1, wherein the controller is configured to maintain the viscosity depending on a 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 at least one 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). Modified Matsumoto is silent that said at least one thin spot having a minimal diameter of less than 5 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the minimal diameter of the at least one thin spot (a portion of a cavity, forming a hinged portion in a molded article) to be in an optimum dimension – i.e., thin enough to form a bendable/flexible hinged portion and thick enough to durably connect two bodies connected by the hinged portion in a molded article. In addition, a recitation of the relative dimension of a hinged portion of a molded article, which would be variable depending on the need of a molded article, the dimension would not make the claim to be patentably distinct from the prior art1.
Regarding claim 9, modified Matsumoto teaches the injection molding device according to claim 8, wherein the at least one constriction comprises at least one geometry for forming a film hinge in the melted 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 a 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 at least one of: a front face of the first sensor arrangement at least partially during the operation forms a part of the cavity wall of the first cavity section and a front face of the second sensor arrangement at least partially during the operation forms a part of a cavity wall of the second cavity section (Altonen: [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 the at least one injection mold forming part of the injection molding device is a production mold or a test mold (Altonen: [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 at least one of: the first sensor arrangement is arranged in a cavity wall of the first cavity section adjacent to or at least at the at least one constriction and the second arrangement is arranged in a cavity wall of the second cavity section adjacent to or at least one constriction (Altonen: [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 at least one constriction, said distance a1 is 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 greater than a diameter of a sensor tip of the second sensor arrangement (Altonen: [0015, 0017, 0084-0086, 0090]; figs. 7, 9). Here, although modified Matsumoto is silent about the distance a1 or a2 and the diameter of the diameter of the first/second sensor arrangement as recited, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the respective sensor tips of the first and the second sensor arrangements disposed in a cavity wall to be disposed apart from the constriction at least farther than the dimension of the sensor tips itself so that installation of the first and the second sensor arrangements and sensing valuable parameters therefrom would not interfere with the design of the constriction nor hinder the flow of a melted material in the constriction.
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 at least one thin spot of the at least one constriction comprises at least two thin spots arranged transversal to the flow path and 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 the at least one constriction in a form of
a. a first outer hinge strap and a second outer hinge strap laterally spaced apart from each other and with respect to a center axis x, the first outer hinge strap and the second outer hinge strap comprising two thin spots of the at least two thin spots, the two thin spots being 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 and comprising at least one thin spot of the at least two thin spots 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 the first sensor arrangement is arranged upstream from the at least one constriction and the second sensor arrangement is arranged downstream from the at least one 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 outer hinge strap 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 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 portions (claim 5; figs. 1, 2). Parnaby teaches that the distance (i.e., between a and c, 91.5 mm) is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (see pages 8-11 or Remark) that Matsumoto in view of Altonen does not disclose or suggest that “the first sensor arrangement and the second sensor arrangement are interlinked to a controller configured to determine during injection a viscosity of the melted plastic material in an area of the at least one constriction” as Altonen does not explicitly teach to use the sensors to determine the viscosity of the melt material in the region of the rib or flow challenge because (1) Altonen’s sensor measures “apparent viscosity” but is incapable of detecting rheological changes, and (2) there is no explicitly teaching of calculating a specific viscosity in the constriction.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument (see above, the 103 rejection of claim 1). Altonen’s sensors 52 which are disposed upstream/downstream of the constriction in a flow direction measure pressure, temperature, and/or viscosity ([0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a viscosity in the area of the constriction (i.e., between the positions of the upstream/downstream sensors) would be determined or estimated by respective viscosity values in consideration of geometry of constriction as the material property of viscosity continuously changes or maintained over the melt flow between the two sensing regions, so as to control molding process based on variations in material viscosity, mold temperature, melt temperature, melt pressure, and filling rate. Monitoring the viscosities before and after the striction area enables monitoring/ estimating/determining the viscosity of the area therebetween (i.e., constriction). This method is the same as recited in claim 1 and disclosed in Instant Specification (Instant Specification: [0015,0027]).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a complex viscosity calculation at a constriction) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, such alleged inventive features (i.e., a complex viscosity calculation at a constriction) are not disclosed in Instant Specification.
Thereby, after reconsideration, claim 1 remains rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 that 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Prosecution Insights