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/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 (claims 26-41 and 46) in the reply filed on 17 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups 1-3 share a technical feature that makes a contribution over Niewels, namely the vestige forming portion being wider than the sealing portion to provide a step having a radial dimension that is greater than an axial length of the vestige forming portion.
The traversal is persuasive insofar as it is directed to US 7,156,651 (“Niewels”), the reference relied upon in the restriction requirement dated 19 December 2025. Niewels expresses the relationship between the vestige forming portion and the gate sealing portion exclusively in terms of cross-sectional area. Niewels does not state any relationship between a radial dimension of a step and an axial length of the vestige forming portion. The relationship identified in the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority is derived from the proportions of Figures 1B and 12. Drawings are not to be relied upon for proportions that are not disclosed in the written description. See MPEP § 2125(II). Niewels is accordingly no longer relied upon in support of the requirement for unity of invention.
The requirement is nevertheless maintained on the basis of CN 113895002 (“Wang”). Wang discloses every limitation of claim 26 (see the § 102 rejection below) and therefore discloses all technical features shared by Groups 1-3 or 1-4. Accordingly, these technical features are not special technical features, and unity of invention is lacking among Groups 1-3 and 1-4.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 42-45 and 47-51 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper”. Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
See line 7 on page 2 of the specification, which cites U.S. Patent Nos. 2,878,515; 3,023,458; and 3,530,539. None of these references appears in an information disclosure statement of record.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On pages 11-12, the Brief Description of the Drawings does not include a description of Figure 5. Figure 5 appears on sheet 5/5 of the drawings and is described on page 18 of the specification as depicting an injection molding system 109. See MPEP § 608.01(f).
Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites “a scaling portion (125)”, which should read “a sealing portion (125)”. See the specification, which describes sealing portion 125. The Examiner notes that the abstract published with the corresponding international application (WO 2023/154994) recites “a sealing portion (125)”, and that the discrepancy therefore appears to have arisen in the entry of the abstract into the record of the present application rather than from any error by applicant. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is nonetheless required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 4-5 of claim 34, “the substantially cylindrical surface” should be replaced with “the cylindrical surface” for consistency with the earlier recitation in the same claim of “a cylindrical surface extending axially from the annular surface”. The term “substantially cylindrical” as recited earlier in claim 34 modifies the vestige forming portion rather than the surface.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 32, 33, and 35-39 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.
The term “substantially sharp” in claims 32, 33, and 35-39 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “substantially sharp” is not defined by the claims, 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. The specification states that a non-tangential transition or corner “may be substantially sharp” and, separately, that it “may have a radius of 0.05 mm or less”. See lines 21-22 on page 6 of the specification. These are recited as independent optional features, and the specification does not state that a corner having a radius of 0.05 mm or less is what is meant by a substantially sharp corner. Moreover, claims 33 and 37 separately recite that the substantially sharp corner has a radius of 0.05 mm or less, which indicates that the term “substantially sharp” as used in claims 32 and 35 encompasses corners having a radius greater than 0.05 mm. The outer bound of the term is therefore not ascertainable. For purposes of examination, a substantially sharp corner is being interpreted as a corner having a radius of 0.05 mm or less.
Claim 33 is rejected based on its dependency from claim 32. Claims 36 and 37 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 35. Please note that the term “substantially cylindrical” in claim 34 is not the subject of this rejection. That term is a geometric approximation having a recognized meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art and does not render the claim indefinite.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “the circumferential surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 38 depends from claim 34, which recites “a cylindrical surface extending axially from the annular surface” but does not recite a circumferential surface. The specification uses the terms “circumferential” and “cylindrical” interchangeably in reference to the same surface. See pages 5 through 7 of the specification, which refer to a side and/or circumferential and/or cylindrical surface, and page 16, which describes a cylindrical surface 170 joined to the annular surface 172 by a corner 176. For purposes of examination, claim 38 is being interpreted as reciting “the cylindrical surface” instead.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 26 is directed to an injection mold component. The valve-gate injection nozzle assembly, the valve member, and the end portion of the valve member referred to in claim 26 are not positively recited elements of the claimed component. The recitation that the sealing portion is “configured to cooperate, in use, with an end portion of a valve member of the valve-gate injection nozzle assembly when the valve member is in a closed position” is a statement of the manner in which the claimed component is intended to be employed. Accordingly, the sealing portion need only be capable of the recited cooperation. See MPEP § 2114(II). The preamble recitation “for a valve-gated injection mold” and the recitation in claim 40 that the component is “a gate insert for a preform mold” are likewise statements of intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02.
Claim 26 recites “a step having a radial dimension that is greater than an axial length of the vestige forming portion”. Claim 26 is not limited to any particular location at which the radial dimension of the step or the axial length of the vestige forming portion is measured. Claim 34, which depends from claim 26, further recites “the radial dimension of the step corresponding to a radial distance from the sealing portion to the substantially cylindrical surface and the axial length of the vestige forming portion being described from the annular surface to an end of the cylindrical surface”. Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, the particular measurement locations recited in claim 34 are not read into claim 26. Claim 26 is accordingly interpreted as requiring only that a radial dimension of a step provided by the vestige forming portion be greater than an axial length of the vestige forming portion, without limitation as to the locations at which those dimensions are measured.
Claim 26 recites “a mold cavity portion describing part of a mold cavity for molding an article”. The term “describing” is used throughout the specification in the sense of defining or delineating a surface or boundary. See, for example, lines 26-27 on page 16 of the specification, which states that an annular surface 172 extends radially from the sealing portion 125 to describe a step 171. The term is interpreted accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 26-28, 30, 31, 34, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113895002 (“Wang”).
Regarding claim 26, Wang discloses an injection mold component for a valve-gated injection mold (the mold core plate 110 of the injection mold hot runner system 10, the hot nozzle assembly 120 of which includes a hot nozzle valve needle 121 driven by a drive cylinder 128 to perform the sealing motion of the glue outlet 112; see [n0026] and [n0036] of the provided translation), the component comprising:
a nozzle seat for receiving a valve-gate injection nozzle assembly (the receiving groove 111 of the mold core plate 110, in which the heating sleeve 122 of the hot nozzle assembly 120 is embedded, the inner wall of the receiving groove 111 contacting the outer wall of the heating sleeve 122; see [n0026] and Figure 2);
a mold cavity portion describing part of a mold cavity for molding an article (the surface of the mold core plate 110 surrounding the glue outlet 112, which forms the gate region of the injection molded product; see [n0027] and Figure 3);
a connecting passageway between the nozzle seat and the mold cavity portion (the glue outlet 112 formed in the groove wall of the receiving groove 111, into which the hot nozzle valve needle 121 is inserted; see [n0026]);
a vestige forming portion between the connecting passageway and the mold cavity portion (the annular groove 113 formed by the mold core plate 110 around the glue outlet 112; see [n0026] and Figure 3); and
a sealing portion extending from the vestige forming portion along at least part of the connecting passageway, the sealing portion being configured to cooperate, in use, with an end portion of a valve member of the valve-gate injection nozzle assembly when the valve member is in a closed position (the wall of the glue outlet 112, against which the arc-shaped head 1211 at the end of the hot nozzle valve needle 121 seals the plastic material; see [n0026]-[n0028]);
wherein the vestige forming portion is wider than the sealing portion (the annular groove 113 has a diameter of 12-18 mm, while the hemispherical head 1211 received in and sealing against the glue outlet 112 has a diameter of 8-12 mm that is 3-7 mm smaller than the diameter of the annular groove 113; see [n0029] and [n0030]), thereby to provide a step having a radial dimension that is greater than an axial length of the vestige forming portion (the radial dimension of the step is more than half of the 3-7 mm difference, that is, more than 1.5 mm, while the axial length of the vestige forming portion is the depth of the annular groove 113, which is 0.3-0.7 mm; in the worked embodiment the annular groove 113 is 15 mm in diameter and 0.5 mm deep and the hemispherical head 1211 is 10 mm in diameter, so that the radial dimension exceeds 2.5 mm against an axial length of 0.5 mm; see [n0029] and [n0030]).
Although Wang does not use the term mold cavity, the surface of the mold core plate 110 surrounding the glue outlet 112 is necessarily part of the mold cavity. Wang describes shrinkage marks, gloss marks, and pits caused by sticking to the mold as appearing on the surface of the injection molded product at the position of the glue outlet 112 and the annular groove 113, which is possible only if that surface of the mold core plate 110 forms the article. See [n0016] and [n0027]. This feature is therefore inherent. See MPEP § 2112.
Although Wang does not state a diameter for the glue outlet 112, that diameter is necessarily smaller than the 8-12 mm diameter of the hemispherical head 1211. Wang requires the hemispherical head 1211 to seal the plastic material at the glue outlet 112 and states that the outermost end of the head 1211 protrudes beyond the outermost end of the glue outlet 112. See [n0027] and [n0028] as well as Figure 3. A hemispherical head can neither seal against nor protrude beyond a bore of equal or greater diameter. The radial dimension of the step recited in claim 26 is accordingly greater than half of the 3-7 mm difference between the diameter of the annular groove 113 and the diameter of the hemispherical head 1211 in every combination disclosed by Wang. See MPEP § 2112.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Wang discloses that the radial dimension of the step is at least 5% and at least 10% greater than the axial length of the vestige forming portion (the radial dimension exceeds 1.5 mm while the depth of the annular groove 113 is at most 0.7 mm, so that the radial dimension is more than 114% greater than the axial length across every disclosed combination; in the worked embodiment the radial dimension exceeds 2.5 mm against an axial length of 0.5 mm; see [n0029] and [n0030]).
Regarding claim 30, Wang discloses that the width of the vestige forming portion is at least 20% greater than the width of the sealing portion (the annular groove 113 has a diameter of 12-18 mm and the hemispherical head 1211 received in the glue outlet 112 has a diameter of 8-12 mm that is 3-7 mm smaller than the diameter of the annular groove 113, so that the diameter of the annular groove 113 is at least 25% greater than the diameter of the hemispherical head 1211 and therefore more than 25% greater than the diameter of the glue outlet 112; in the worked embodiment the annular groove 113 is 15 mm and the hemispherical head 1211 is 10 mm, a difference of 50%; see [n0029] and [n0030]).
Regarding claim 31, Wang discloses that the width of the vestige forming portion is at least 5 times the axial length of the vestige forming portion (the annular groove 113 is 12-18 mm in diameter and 0.3-0.7 mm deep, a ratio of at least 17 to 1; in the worked embodiment 15 mm against 0.5 mm, a ratio of 30 to 1; see [n0030]).
Regarding claim 34, Wang discloses that the vestige forming portion is substantially cylindrical with an annular surface extending radially from the sealing portion to describe at least part of the step and a cylindrical surface extending axially from the annular surface (the annular groove 113 formed around the glue outlet 112 and characterized by a diameter and a depth; see [n0030] and Figure 3), the radial dimension of the step corresponding to a radial distance from the sealing portion to the substantially cylindrical surface and the axial length of the vestige forming portion being described from the annular surface to an end of the cylindrical surface (the radial distance from the glue outlet 112 to the wall of the annular groove 113, and the depth of the annular groove 113 measured from its floor; see [n0030]). A groove specified by a diameter and a depth is cylindrical, and those two parameters correspond to the measurement locations recited in claim 34.
Regarding claim 46, Wang discloses an injection mold comprising an injection mold component according to claim 26 (the injection mold hot runner system 10, comprising the mold core plate 110, the hot nozzle assembly 120 and the back plate 130; see [n0026] and Figure 1).
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.
Claims 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, as applied to claim 26 or 34 above, and further in view of US 2004/0208949 (“Niewels”) (related to US 7,156,651, cited in an IDS).
Niewels is directed to a gate insert for a valve-gated injection mold that is configured so that tearing along the side of the vestige of a molded article is substantially avoided upon ejection. See [0020] and [0061]. Niewels teaches a gate insert 31 having a nozzle recess 11, a molding cavity portion, a gate sealing portion 25 provided along a first cylindrical bore, and a vestige forming portion 35 provided along a second cylindrical bore that is wider than the first, the residual top of the second bore forming an annular portion 72 that adjoins a side portion 70. See [0061] and [0064]-[0066], and Figures 11 and 12.
Regarding claim 39, Wang does not disclose that the annular surface is joined to the sealing portion by a substantially sharp corner, as claimed. Niewels teaches that the corner 74 between the annular portion 72 and the gate sealing portion 25 is preferably configured to be substantially sharp (see [0026] and [0067]). Niewels attributes the avoidance of gate tearing to the interaction between the outer circumferential portion 23 of the vestige and the vestige forming portion 35. See [0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the corner between the floor of the annular groove 113 and the wall of the glue outlet 112 of Wang to be substantially sharp, as taught by Niewels, in order to reduce tearing at the vestige of the molded article. Wang is likewise directed to improving the appearance of the molded article at the gate, and the modification amounts to the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 40, Wang does not disclose that the component is a gate insert for a preform mold, as claimed. The mold core plate 110 of Wang carries a plurality of glue outlets 112 (see Figure 1). Niewels teaches a discrete gate insert 31 that is seated within a cavity insert 34 (see [0046]) and that is used in molds configured for forming thick-walled preforms (see [0015]). Niewels further teaches that the gate insert provides a component that can be replaced as the sealing portion wears, rather than replacing the entire cavity insert or plate (see [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gate geometry of Wang in a replaceable gate insert, as taught by Niewels, for the reason expressly given by Niewels, namely to permit replacement of the worn component alone rather than the entire cavity plate.
Regarding claim 41, Wang does not disclose a cooling channel for receiving cooling fluid to cool the vestige forming portion and the mold cavity portion, as claimed. The water jacket 140 of Wang is a separate component of the hot runner system that is received in the receiving groove 111, and its cooling function is not stated to be directed to the gate region (see [n0037]). Niewels teaches cooling passageways provided in the cavity insert 34 and the gate insert 31 for the communication of a cooling fluid to remove heat from the cavity insert and gate insert and thereby cool and solidify the molten material in the mold cavity 28 (see [0046]), together with grooves 37 and 39 configured for receiving coolant seals (see [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide such cooling passageways in the mold core plate 110 of Wang in order to cool and solidify the molten material at the gate and in the mold cavity, and thereby to control cycle time, as taught by Niewels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 32, 33, and 35-38 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 29, the closest prior art of record, Wang, discloses a radial dimension that is more than 114% greater than the axial length of the vestige forming portion across every combination of the disclosed ranges. There is accordingly no overlap with the claimed range of between 15% and 20% greater, and no rationale based on overlapping or abutting ranges is available under MPEP § 2144.05(I). No other reference of record states any relationship between a radial dimension of the step and an axial length of the vestige forming portion.
Regarding claims 32 and 35, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a substantially sharp corner joining the axially extending or cylindrical surface of the vestige forming portion to the mold cavity portion, as claimed. Niewels, which teaches a substantially sharp corner 74 at the junction between the annular portion 72 and the gate sealing portion 25, teaches the opposite arrangement at the junction with the molding cavity, disclosing a transition portion configured to gradually blend the vestige forming portion 35 into the adjacent molding surface portion 32 of the mold cavity 28 by way of first and second outwardly diverging radial portions 78 and 80. See [0027] and [0066].
Claim 33 contains allowable subject matter based on its dependency from claim 32. Claims 36 and 37 contain allowable subject matter based on their dependency from claim 35.
Regarding claim 38, Niewels teaches only that the radial portion 76 in the corner between the side and top portions of the vestige forming portion is preferably minimal, and depicts that radial portion as rounded in Figure 12, which does not teach or suggest the substantially sharp corner recited in claim 38. See [0025] and [0067].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, see Figures 1 and 3 of US 2023/0294343 and Figure 1 of DE 10 2008 035 436.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John DeRusso whose telephone number is (571)270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00 AM-6:00 PM ET.
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, 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.
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights