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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 1/23/2026. Currently claims 1-15 are pending in the application; with claims 13-15 withdrawn from consideration.
ELECTION / RESTRICTION
Applicant's election of Group I, claims 1-12, with traverse, drawn to a method in the reply filed on 1/23/2020 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the newly amended claim 13 recites “the electrical motor (4) controls the compression movement in position, the compression movement representing between 5% and 40% of the cycle time”, thereby, making contribution over the prior art. However, the Examiner takes the position that Balboni (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0044508 A1), in view of Steurer (CH 695674 A5, teaches the feature, as has been explained in the rejection section of the Office Action. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Balboni et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0044508 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Balboni”, in view of Steurer (CH 695674 A5), hereafter, referred to as “Steurer”.
Regarding claim 1, Balboni teaches a moulding method for moulding products from a dose of molten material (Figs. 1-13, para. [0001-0002]), with a moulding device (Figs. 1-2, (element 20)), (para. [0067]), comprising at least a dosing unit (implicit from para. [0076] and Fig. 5); at least one mould formed of at least a first part and a second part (para. [0076] and Figs. 3-7); an electrical motor that pilots a compression movement of at least one of said parts of the mould towards the other of said parts (para. [0046], and (element 26) in Fig. 22); a rotating turret ((element 21) in Fig. 1, para. [0067]); a spring (chamber 11, accessory, para. [0180]) that defines a moulding force; wherein at least the electrical motor and the dosing unit are in a fixed position in the moulding device (implicit); wherein at least one of said parts of the mould rotates with the turret.
But Balboni fails to explicitly teach that the movement of one of said parts of the mould towards the other of said parts is controlled in position and the compression movement represents between 5% and 40% of the cycle time. However, Steurer teaches that with regard to the results of the moulding, compacting and cooling functions, a very high degree of uniformity rate of the plastic parts formed, such as dimensional uniformity, colour uniformity, etc. It has proven to be appropriate if the total time (100%) of a process cycle is adjusted in such a way that its index time is between is between 10% and 50%, preferably 30% to 40%, of the remaining function time (para. [0021]). Applicant mentions that the instant application may be regarded as providing steps to produce packaging tubes of an optimum quality (page 3, lines20-24, specification). A person of ordinary skill would assume that the desired product features "high degree of uniformity rate of the plastic parts formed, such as dimensional uniformity, colour uniformity etc." are synonymous to the desired product quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Steurer and combine the feature of controlling the position of a compression movement in dependence of the cycle time, that also depends on the circumstances, which also would be a recurring process parameter. It is also noted that the positional control as implicit in the cycle dependent movement of the moulds of Steurer. Steurer also teaches that a switching time (also called index time) is a time portion of the cycle step that is necessary to move the means for carrying out the functions into intended or suitable positions (para. [0019[). Therefore, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the movement of one of said parts of the mould towards the other of said parts is controlled in position and the compression movement represents between 5% and 40% of the cycle time, for providing steps to produce packaging tubes of desired quality.
Regarding claims 2-5, Balboni teaches a moulding method for moulding products from a dose of molten material with a moulding device. But Balboni fails to explicitly teach that range of the moulding parameters as claimed in claims 2-5. However, Steurer teaches that with regard to the results of the moulding, compacting and cooling functions, a very high degree of uniformity rate of the plastic parts formed, such as dimensional uniformity, colour uniformity, etc. It has proven to be appropriate if the total time (100%) of a process cycle is adjusted in such a way that its index time is between is between 10% and 50%, preferably 30% to 40%, of the remaining function time (para. [0021]). Applicant mentions that the present application may be regarded as providing steps to produce packaging tubes of an optimum quality (page 3, lines 20-24, specification). A person of ordinary skill would assume that the desired product features "high degree of uniformity rate of the plastic parts formed, such as dimensional uniformity, colour uniformity etc." are synonymous to the desired product quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to optimize the moulding parameters to obtain desired product quality. It would also have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that moulding parameters such as approach movement of said parts of the mould towards each other, the step of holding said parts of the mould under pressure, maximum closing/constant speed attainment time; and maximum closing acceleration/deceleration time would also affect the product property. Therefore, the above parameters would be considered result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining the approach movement of said parts of the mould towards each other wherein the approach movement represents between 10% and 50% of the cycle time (as claimed in claim 2); a step of holding said parts of the mould under pressure which represents between 5% and 50% of the cycle time (as claimed in claim 3); the maximum closing speed is reached between 5% and 25% of the cycle time, a constant speed is reached between 65% and 95% of the cycle time (as claimed in claim 4); and maximum closing acceleration is reached between 2% and 20% of the cycle time and a maximum closing deceleration is reached between 10% and 40% of the cycle time(as claimed in claim 5); would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 6, Hermant (US Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0055220 A1) teaches a moulding method for moulding products from a dose of molten material (para. [0002]), with a moulding device (Figs. 1 & 2) comprising at least a dosing unit (extruder accessory, para. [0138]) with a valve (para. [0138]) having at least an opening movement and a closing movement driven by a motor (flap or solenoid valve 30, para. [0138]); and wherein at least the opening movement of the valve is controlled in accordance with the material of the dose (implicit in para. [0138]).
However, the prior art of references does not teach or fairly suggest the subject matter of independent claim 6, especially with the combination of the following limitation:
“the opening movement of the valve (37) is controlled in accordance with the material of the dose and the opening movement of the valve represents between 5% and 70% of the cycle time”.
Claims 7-12 directly or indirectly depend on claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Central Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742