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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruggesser et al. (US 2014/0116371), hereinafter Bruggesser in view of Nishida (JP 2009-220420 A), cited in Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Bruggesser discloses an injection molding machine system comprising:
(a) an injection molding machine (“injection molding device 2” – par. 0036);
(b) a mold (“mold bodies 6, 7” having “tool parts” 12, 13, 14, 15) – par. 0036) provided in the injection molding machine (Fig. 1-2);
(c) a heater device (“heating device 26” – par. 0042-0043, Fig. 5); and
(d) a pressing device (Fig. 6 at 30, shows the arrow denoting the movement of the “pressing device” which as a different configuration than the molding configuration, par. 0015, 0044 – “welding zones 28 rest against each other and are in particular pressed against each other”);
(e) a conveying device (“insertion device 3” – par. 0036; Fig. 3) configured to convey the primary molded article in the primary molding cavity to the secondary molding cavity (par. 0015). In the apparatus claim, the device does not actually have to perform the claimed step, but only must be capable of performing the claimed step, without modification.
Brugesser further discloses: wherein the mold is configured to form at least two or more primary molding cavities (20, 21) and one or more secondary molding cavities (as shown in the configuration of Fig. 6); wherein each of the primary molding cavities is to form molding a primary molded article having a bonding end surface by injection molding (this is drafted as an intended use – see MPEP 2114),
wherein the secondary molding cavity (as shown in the configuration of Fig. 6) is for molding a molded article from a pair of the primary molded articles taken out from the primary molding cavities by placing the pair of primary molding articles in the secondary molding cavity and closing or clamping the mold (this is drafted as an intended use – see MPEP 2114),
wherein the heater device is configured to melt the bonding end surfaces of the pair of primary molded articles placed in the secondary molding cavity (par. 0018 – “welding process”), and wherein the pressing device is configured to press the pair of primary molded articles with molten bonding end surfaces (welding zones 28 – par. 0042) against each other in a state where the mold is closed (Fig. 6, par. 0044) or clamped such that the pair of primary molded articles (20, 21) are fused together (at weld seam 31 – Fig. 8) to obtain a molded article.
Examiner notes that the Bruggesser reference appears to include a functional insert (22) (par. 0053) within the molded article and is placed within prior to welding the ends together, but this would not mean that the claim is not met by the prior art as the term “comprising” denotes that the claim can include additional, unrecited elements (such as an insert). See MPEP 2111.03.
Bruggesser does not appear to explicitly disclose that the secondary molding cavity is separate from the primary molding cavities. However, Nishida discloses a similar system to that of Brugesser above (see Nishida, Figs. 1-3 which show a secondary molding cavity (at the middle) separate from the primary molding cavities at the sides. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success from having used either configuration of molds, as in Brugesser or in Nishida. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that the molds are configured as in Nishida, in the system of Brugesser above.
Regarding claim 3, Bruggesser/Nishida discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the heater device includes a heater configured to emit an infrared ray (B, par. 0018 – “an infrared radiator is brought relatively close to the respective welding zone so as to achieve the desired heating by means of infrared radiation”).
Regarding claims 7-8, Bruggesser/Nishida discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the injection molding machine includes a plurality of mold platens (“mold bodies 6, 7” or “tool parts” 12, 13, 14, 15 – B, par. 0036) that are clamped together, and the mold is provided on the plurality of mold platens or tool parts and has parting lines forming the primary/secondary cavities when opening and closing the mold.
Regarding claim 9, Bruggesser/Nishida discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses a control device configured to perform: (a) an injection molding step (B, par. 0015) comprising molding the primary molded article by clamping the mold and injecting a material into the cavity; (b) a melting step comprising opening the mold, placing the molded articles into the secondary molding cavity, and melting the bonding surfaces by the hater (B, par. 0042, described above in claim 1); and (c) a press-fusion step comprising closing or clamping the mold (B, Fig. 6), and pressing the pair of primary molded articles against each other by the pressing device to fuse the articles together, resulting in the molded article (par. 0044; also described above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Bruggesser/Nishida discloses the subject matter of claim 9, and performs the injection molding and press-fusion step as required in claim 9, which is mutually exclusive with this first limitation, and further discloses that the system is configured to mold a pair of primary molded articles (by returning to the configuration of B, Figs 1-2).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruggesser (US 2014/0116371) in view of Nishida (JP 2009-220429 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishida (US 2005/0255267), hereinafter Nishida (‘267).
Regarding claims 4-6, Bruggesser/Nishida discloses the subject matter of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the secondary molding cavity contains a slide core/member or an ejector rod as is required in these claims.
However, Nishida (‘267) discloses a similar method to that of Bruggesser in that Nishida describes a molding of three semi-finished molded articles using a slide die, and first and second slide cores (Nishida ‘267, abstract; Fig. 4A-4B; par. 0034-0035, 0037, 0040), demonstrating that such a pressing mode was known in the art and useful in the production of similar types of “welded” injection molded articles pieced together (Nishida ‘267, par. 0034-0035) with inclined (or tapered) pins. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the slide core/die which can work as an ejector of Nishida useful in the device of Bruggesser above as to have provided a similar pressing and way to remove the article from the mold after molding. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that the secondary molding cavity includes a slide core/member and an ejector rod as is required in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument that remains in the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 6/17/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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 at (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 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights