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 .
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) 1,5,6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishida et al (USPN 6036908). Nishida et al teach the claimed process as evidenced at col 2:48-57; col 3:20-24; col 8:30-col 10:6; and col 11:44-13:21; and figs 1-4 and 9-12.
Regarding claim 1: An injection molding method, comprising:
providing a molding device including a first mold (Nishida et al: movable mold 2), a second mold (Nishida et al: the mold containing the first molding split cavity portion 1a) over the first mold and a first mold cavity (Nishida et al : split cavity portion 2a) defined by the first mold and the second mold:
injecting a first material into the first mold cavity (Nishida et al: figs 1-4 and 9-12);
forming a first layer (Nishida et al : primary molded piece A0) from the first material injected into the first mold cavity;
replacing the second mold by a third mold (Nishida et al: the mold containing the second molding split cavity portion 1b) after the forming the first layer from the first material;
injecting a second material into a second mold cavity defined by the first mold and the third mold (Nishida et al: figs 1-4 and 9-12) after the replacing the second mold by the third mold; and
forming a second layer from the second material injected into the second mold cavity and disposed over the first layer (Nishida et al: figs 3-4 and 11-12),
wherein the first material is same or different from the second material (Nishida et al: col 2:48-57; col 3:20-24) and
after the forming the first layer from the first material, the first layer is held within the first mold during the replacing the second mold by the third mold.
Regarding claim 5: The injection molding method of Claim 1, wherein the replacement of the second mold includes removing the second mold, disposing the third mold over the first mold and moving the first mold towards the third mold to form the second mold cavity (Nishida et al: movable mold 2, which contains the first mold, is moved down away from the stationary mold 1, which contains the first and second split cavity portions 1a/1b; figs 1-4 and 9-12).
Regarding claim 6: The injection molding method of Claim 1, further comprising disposing a component within an opening of the third mold prior to the injection of the second material, wherein the component is attached to and disposed over the second layer (Nishida et al: component W is disposed within the primary molded piece A0; figs 1-4 and 9-12).
Regarding claim 8: The injection molding method of Claim 1, wherein the first layer includes a first portion and a second portion separated from the first portion, and the second layer is disposed over the first portion and the second portion (Nishida et al: the upstanding, opposing lateral walls, which are separated by the bottom portion, of primary molded piece A0 constitute the claimed first and second portions. Also, the primary molded piece A0 including the walls are covered by the second layer; figs 3-4 and 11-12).
Regarding claim 11: the injection molding method of Claim 1, further comprising taking out an article including the first layer and the second layer from the second mold cavity (Nishida et al: such is inherent to the process of Nishida et al in order to provide a product for consumers; figs 1-4, 9-12, and 17-18).
Regarding claim 12: the injection molding method of Claim 1, wherein the second layer is adhered to the first layer directly (Nishida et al: such is taught by the molding of an integral product comprising two materials; figs 1-4 and 9-12).
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.
Claim(s) 2,3,4,7,9, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al (USPN 6036908) as applied to claim 1 above. The above teachings of Nishida et al are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claims 2-4, Nishida et al do teach using the claimed materials. Since the use of a specific material is a mere obvious matter of choice dependent on the desired final product, and the claimed materials are well-known in the encapsulating art for its protection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the claimed materials in the process of Nishida et al in order to produce articles having different forms of protections.
Regarding claim 7, Nishida et al do not teach disposing an adhesive. Since it is well-known in the composite art to apply an adhesive between layers in order to ensure bonding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply an adhesive over the primary molded piece A0 of Nishida et al in order to ensure its bonding with the second layer.
Regarding claims 9-10, Nishida et al do not teach the expansion of the first mold cavity to a third mold cavity. Since it is well-known in the molding art to slightly open a mold cavity in order to release pressure or cool a molding by creating a larger volume cavity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to move the movable mold 1 of Nishida et al away from the stationary mold 2 in order to release pressure in the mold cavity or cool the primary molded piece of Nishida et al.
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record including the closest prior art Nishida et al (USPM 6036908) neither teaches nor renders obvious every claimed limitation including providing a first carrier and a second carrier disposed adjacent to the first carrier, a first mold held by the first carrier, and a second mold held by the second carrier; disposing a third mold adjacent to the first mold held by the first carrier; injecting a first material into a first mold cavity defined by the third mold and the first mold after the third mold is engaged with the first mold; forming a first layer from the first material injected into the first mold cavity; conveying the third mold holding the first layer formed from the first material and injected into the first mold cavity from the first carrier to the second carrier to dispose the third mold adjacent to the second mold held by the second carrier; injecting a second material into a second mold cavity defined by the third mold and the second mold after the third mold is engaged with the second mold; and forming a second layer from the second material injected into the second mold cavity and disposed over the first layer.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Nishida et al do not teach holding the first layer within the first mold during the replacing of the second mold by the third mold because Nishida et al teach taking out the molded piece from a mold and then conveying it to another adjacent mold. This argument is misplaced because Nishida et al teaches rotating the movable mold 2a having the primary molded piece A0 therein from under the stationary mold 1a to under the stationary mold 1b for the second injection step. See Nishida et al, col 8:30-col 10:6, col 11:44-13:21, and figs 1-4 and 9-12. The transferring step of Nishida et al is performed by rotating a movable mold/first mold from under one stationary mold/second mold to another stationary mold/third mold.
Applicant should note the well-known statements made by the examiner in the prior art rejections of the non-final Office action mailed 9/10/25 are now considered as admitted prior art since applicant did not traverse the statements in the most recent remarks filed 8/14/20. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following USPNs teach molding composite by using molds on a turntable: 20030086973, 20060065992, 20040211509, 7081179, 4923653, 20030017224, 4885121, 5721039, 5413743, 5756013, and 7976757.
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 EDMUND H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1204. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-4PM.
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 on 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.
EHL
/EDMUND H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744