DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-11 have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BRUGGESSER (US 20140116371 A1).
Re 1, BRUGGESSER teaches of an injection molding machine system comprising:
an injection molding machine (See abstract, and Fig. 1);
a mold (6, 7) provided in the injection molding machine;
a heater device (26); and
wherein the mold is configured such that one mold half is slidable relative to the other mold half and is configured to clamp at two or more mold clamping positions including a first mold clamping position and a second mold clamping position,
(see molds 6, 7, Figs. 1 and 2, see first and second clamping positions)
wherein the one mold half has at least one one-side recessed portion in which the pressing device is provided, and the other mold half has at least one other-side recessed portion,
(See Figs. 1 and 2, see the products formed in the recessed cavities, see housing parts 20, 21)
wherein when the mold is clamped in the first mold clamping position,
at least one primary molding cavity is formed by the one-side recessed portion, and at least one primary molding cavity is formed by the other-side recessed portion,
(See Fig. 1, first clamping position and the primary molding cavities formed on the recessed cavities on the molds)
wherein when the mold is closed or clamped in the second mold clamping position, a secondary molding cavity is formed by the one-side recessed portion and the other-side recessed portion, wherein the primary molding cavity is configured to mold a primary molded article having a bonding end surface by injection molding, wherein the heater device is configured to melt the bonding end surface of the primary molded article placed in the one-side recessed portion and the bonding end surface of the primary molded article placed in the other-side recessed portion, and wherein the pressing device is configured to press, in the secondary molding cavity, the primary molded article having the molten bonding end surface and placed in the one-side recessed portion to fuse with the primary molded article having the molten bonding end surface and placed in the other-side recessed portion.
(See Fig. 6 of the second clamping position that combine the bonding ends of the articles together, see Fig. 5 of the heater device that melts the bonding end surfaces)
(See Figs 1-9, wherein, the machines are moved into the different positions from clamping positions to heating to pressing for bonding of the elements)
Wherein regarding “a presser device”, the different positions of the molds to be moved is seen as being taught by BRUGESSER, particularly as seen by the mold halves that moves into position, particularly when the molds press the mold articles together as seen in Fig. 6 of BRUGGESSER, see arrows 30 of the movement of the mold bodies 6, 7 towards another, see [0044], and pressed against each other.
Re 2 (upon 1), wherein the heater device includes a heater configured to emit an infrared ray to melt the bonding end surface in a non-contact manner.
(See teaching by BRUGGESSER that teaches of a infrared radiator for infrared radiation for the bonding/welding step, see [0017-0018].)
Re 3 (upon 1), wherein the one mold half is linearly slidable with respect to the other mold half, and the mold is clamped at two or more mold clamping positions including the first mold clamping position and the second mold clamping position, depending on a sliding position.
(See the sliding step positioning between Figs. 2-3)
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) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUGGESSER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GAUDIN (US 2016/0221070 A1).
Re 4 (upon 1), wherein the one mold half is rotationally slidable with respect to the other mold half, and the mold is clamped at two or more mold clamping positions including the first mold clamping position and the second mold clamping position, depending on a rotation position.
BRUGGESSER does not teach of the mold half being rotationally slidable and clamping positions depending on rotation position.
The GAUDIN reference teaches of known mold halves that clamp into position and includes a rotational sliding of the mold half, see Figs. 1-12, see first and second platens 4, 5 of the injection mold 1 and the first and second mold bodies 2, 3, see [0059-0060]. The first platen being rotated to cause the half pieces 101 to move from the injection station P1 to the welding station P2 and the complementary half-piece 102 also being moved and thereby allowing for half pieces 101, 102 are positioned facing each other, see [0067]. The advantage allowing for several manufacturing cycles to be carried out simultaneously, see [0038-0041] and optimize manufacturing efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified BRUGGESSER with the rotational slidable mold halves as taught by GAUDIN allows for operating manufacturing cycles simultaneously that allows for optimizing manufacturing efficiency.
Re 8 (upon 1), wherein the injection molding machine includes three or more mold platens to be clamped together, and wherein any two adjacent mold platens are each provided with the mold.
(See teaching by GAUDIN of the plural mold platens that allows for clamping together, see Figs. 6 and 7.)
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUGGESSER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MIYABE (US 20100155981 A1).
Re 5 (upon 1), wherein the one-side recessed portion is formed in a slide core stored in a core storage hole opened in the one mold half, and wherein the slide core is configured to be driven by the pressing device in a direction perpendicular to a parting line of the mold.
The BRUGGESSER fails to teach of the slide core in one mold half.
MIYABE teaches of a slide core 3 having slide members 72a, 72b that runs parallel to the parting line, see Fig. 4-5, and having tapered surfaces, see 73a, 73b that allow for sliding contact. Such a feature located in a mold is known in the molding arts to accommodate for mold cavity dimensions that one skilled in the art would recognize and incorporate the feature into the mold of the BRUGGESSER to accommodate the mold cavity dimensions during operations.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the mold of BRUGGESSER with the slide core of MIYABE to accommodate the desired mold cavity dimensions during mold operations.
Re 6 (upon 5), wherein the pressing device includes a slide member configured to slide parallel to the parting line of the mold, and wherein a back surface of the slide core and a front surface of the slide member are respectively formed into tapered surfaces, and the tapered surfaces allow for sliding contact with each other.
(See MIYABE teaching above regarding the slide member with the parallel to the parting line, and of the tapered surfaces.)
Re 7 (upon 5), wherein the pressing device is an ejector rod, and wherein the slide core is configured to be driven by the ejector rod.
(See teaching by MIYABE of the screw shaft 71 which acts as the ejector rod.)
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUGGESSER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of OKUNISHI (US 20220161469 A1).
Re 5 (upon 1), wherein the one-side recessed portion is formed in a slide core stored in a core storage hole opened in the one mold half, and wherein the slide core is configured to be driven by the pressing device in a direction perpendicular to a parting line of the mold.
The BRUGGESSER fails to teach of the slide core in one mold half.
OKUNISHI teaches of a slide cores (mold cavity blocks 1101, 1201) with slide members (wedge members 1311a, 1411a) that runs parallel to the parting line, see Fig.1-28, and having tapered surfaces (see engagement between 1411a and 1411b and 1311a and 1311b) that allow for sliding contact. Such a feature located in a mold is known in the molding arts to accommodate for mold cavity dimensions that one skilled in the art would recognize and incorporate the feature into the mold of the BRUGGESSER to accommodate the mold cavity dimensions during operations.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the mold of BRUGGESSER with the slide core of OKUNISHI to accommodate the desired mold cavity dimensions and thickness of the resin to be molded during mold operations.
Re 6 (upon 5), wherein the pressing device includes a slide member configured to slide parallel to the parting line of the mold, and wherein a back surface of the slide core and a front surface of the slide member are respectively formed into tapered surfaces, and the tapered surfaces allow for sliding contact with each other.
(See OKUNISHI teaching above regarding the slide member with the parallel to the parting line, and of the tapered surfaces, see Figures 1-28, see slide members that are parallel to the parting line.)
Re 7 (upon 5), wherein the pressing device is an ejector rod, and wherein the slide core is configured to be driven by the ejector rod.
(See teaching by OKUNISHI of the power transmission member 1312, 1412, as the rods for operating the slide cores.)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUGGESSER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GRAM (US 2005/0017413 A1).
Re 9 (upon 1), wherein the mold is a stack mold that is clamped at parting lines on a plurality of surfaces, and wherein the one mold half and the other mold half are provided in each of the parting lines on the plurality of surfaces which are joined when the mold is clamped.
BRUGGESSER does not teach of a stack mold.
GRAM teaches of the molds in a stack mold that are clamped at parting lines along plurality of surfaces, see Figs. 1-4. Further, as seen in GRAM there being different clamping positions depending upon the positions of the molds in the stack mold.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified BRUGGESSER with the use of the stack mold for the mold halves as taught by GRAM
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUGGESSER, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WATANABE (US 2020/0055219 A1).
Re 10 (upon 1), further comprising of a control device, wherein the control device is configured to perform steps that the BRUGGESSE teaches of the claimed steps, see Figs. 1-9, see also in teaching in claim 1 above.
BRUGGESSER does not specifically teach is of the control device itself.
In this regards of the use of control device for an injection molding system, this is known in the molding arts for operating the system based upon the processes. Here, an example is in WATANABE of a injection molding apparatus which includes use of a rotary plate and further operated under a control of the controller 90, see [0026-0027], the controller having processors and performs various functions and control instructions, see [0035], and further control of the heating [0051], and of the mold clamping step, see [0071]. Whereby, it is known in the molding arts to use a control device to operate various processing steps.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modify the molding system of BRUGGESSE with a control device as taught by WATANABE for operating the molding process.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUGESSER in view of WATANABE as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of GAUDIN (US 2016/0221070 A1).
Re 11 (upon 10), wherein the control device is configured to perform the press-fusion step and the injection molding step in parallel and substantially simultaneously, and in the case of obtaining the molded article from the pair of primary molded articles by performing the press-fusion step, mold another pair of primary molded articles by performing the injection molding step.
BRUGESSER fails to teach of the additional simultaneous steps.
The GAUDIN reference teaches of known mold halves that clamp into position and includes a rotational sliding of the mold half, see Figs. 1-12, see first and second platens 4, 5 of the injection mold 1 and the first and second mold bodies 2, 3, see [0059-0060]. The first platen being rotated to cause the half pieces 101 to move from the injection station P1 to the welding station P2 and the complementary half-piece 102 also being moved and thereby allowing for half pieces 101, 102 are positioned facing each other, see [0067]. The advantage allowing for several manufacturing cycles to be carried out simultaneously, see [0038-0041] and optimize manufacturing efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified BRUGGESSER in view of WATANABE with the rotational slidable mold halves as taught by GAUDIN allows for operating manufacturing cycles simultaneously that allows for optimizing manufacturing efficiency.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, and 5-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-10 of copending Application No. 18/726,784 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed features of the applications in the respective claims encompasses the features of the respective claims in the copending application.
Instant application claim 1 corresponds to claim 1 of copending application.
Instant application claim 2 corresponds to claim 3 of copending application.
Instant application claim 5 corresponds to claim 4 of copending application.
Instant application claim 6 corresponds to claim 5 of copending application.
Instant application claim 7 corresponds to claim 6 of copending application.
Instant application claim 8 corresponds to claim 7 of copending application.
Instant application claim 9 corresponds to claim 8 of copending application.
Instant application claim 10 corresponds to claim 9 of copending application.
Instant application claim 11 corresponds to claim 10 of copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/726,784 in view of BRUGGESSER (US 20140116371 A1).
Re 3 (upon 1), wherein the one mold half is linearly slidable with respect to the other mold half, and the mold is clamped at two or more mold clamping positions including the first mold clamping position and the second mold clamping position, depending on a sliding position.
The copending application does not teach of the linearly slidable to the other mold half for the mold clamping positions.
BRUGGESSER teaches of an injection molding machine system and includes of the sliding step positioning between Figs. 2-3.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified copending application with the sliding step of the mold halves as taught by BRUGGESSER as it allows for providing plural clamping positions provided with the mold halves.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/726,784 in view of GAUDIN (US 2016/0221070 A1).
Re 4 (upon 1), wherein the one mold half is rotationally slidable with respect to the other mold half, and the mold is clamped at two or more mold clamping positions including the first mold clamping position and the second mold clamping position, depending on a rotation position.
The copending application does not teach of the mold half being rotationally slidable and clamping positions depending on rotation position.
The GAUDIN reference teaches of known mold halves that clamp into position and includes a rotational sliding of the mold half, see Figs. 1-12, see first and second platens 4, 5 of the injection mold 1 and the first and second mold bodies 2, 3, see [0059-0060]. The first platen being rotated to cause the half pieces 101 to move from the injection station P1 to the welding station P2 and the complementary half-piece 102 also being moved and thereby allowing for half pieces 101, 102 are positioned facing each other, see [0067]. The advantage allowing for several manufacturing cycles to be carried out simultaneously, see [0038-0041] and optimize manufacturing efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified copending application with the rotational slidable mold halves as taught by GAUDIN allows for operating manufacturing cycles simultaneously that allows for optimizing manufacturing efficiency.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, most teaching injection mold clamping features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744