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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 15, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended independent claims 1, 11 and 17. As to claims 1 and 11, a narrower limitation was added whereby the injection molding method now changes the previous placement of the last paragraph of claim 1 to a second paragraph location such that there is now a step of “injecting a second mixture into the mold cavity through the first runner and the second runner, and forming a second foamed article from the second mixture inside the mold cavity,” and in the subsequent step of placing a first divider within the runner plate, the limitation of “after forming the second foamed article” is added. A similar relocation is done in amended independent claim 11.
Additionally, claim 17 is amended to recite a combination of features include that the number of runners “is greater than” the number of passages and that the divider is configured to block a mixture flowing into the mold cavity through “at least one of the runners and allow the mixture flowing into the mold cavity through “at least one of” the passages and another one of the runners.”
Applicant argues that Blundy (US 6.196,822 B1) IDS 04/29/2025) used as the reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) discloses a rotatable flow adjusting pin positioned within a bore to regulate flow but does not disclose placing a removable first divider after formation of a second foamed article nor does it disclose a second-mixture-first sequence, as recited in claim 1. Additionally, the applicant contends that the examiner states that the rotation of the flow adjusting pin of Blundy “effectively places the first divider”, improperly equates rotational adjustment with the distinct placement step as recited in claim 1. (Applicant arguments/remarks 06/15/2026 pp.1-2).
The examiner counter argues that the current amendment of claim 1 merely changes the placement order of the original injection step “prior to the placement of the first divider, injecting a second mixture into the mold cavity through the first runner and the second runner, and forming a second foamed article from the second mixture inside the mold cavity” to a location in the claim as a second step. Therefore, the counter argument from the previous final rejection office action still holds:
This is because the first divider being placed does not involve a physical detachment or removal of the flow adjusting pin, which acts as the divider, but does allow through its rotation for the injection of a second mixture into the mold cavity through the first runner and the second runner and thereby forms a second foamed article from the second mixture inside the mold cavity. See Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
715
1224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moreover, see Figs. 6-8 Col. 3, ll. 53-64 where the flow adjusting pin (first divider) can be placed into a bore formed in the manifold – 10 and, as stated before, this implies that it can be removed.
Applicant argues that independent claim 11 now recites a combination of feature including “injecting a second mixture into the mold cavity through the first runner and the second runner and forming a second foamed article from the second mixture inside the mold cavity” and inserting a first plug into the first runner after forming the second foamed article.”
Applicant argues that Blundy, the primary reference in the rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 does not disclose that the flow adjusting pin can be placed or removed but that this rotatable flow adjusting pin is positioned only to regulate flow but it does not disclose placing a removable first divider after formation of a second foamed article nor the claimed second-mixture-first sequence as now recited in claim 11.
Moreover, the secondary reference Takeshita (JP S62-28516U), discloses a plug, and Takeshita is silent as to this plug being placed or removed. Moreover, it this alleged plug is removed, the injection operation in Takeshita may not function correctly. (Applicant arguments/remarks 06/15/2026 pp. 2-4).
The examiner counter argues, similar to claim 1 above, the current amendment of claim 11 merely changes the placement order of the original injection step “prior to the placement of the first divider, injecting a second mixture into the mold cavity through the first runner and the second runner, and forming a second foamed article from the second mixture inside the mold cavity” to a location in the claim as a second step. Therefore, the counter argument from the previous final rejection office action still holds:
As to the applicant argument that the plug is not placed or removed, in Takeshita, the same argument from claim 1 in that the first divider being placed does not involve a physical detachment or removal of the flow adjusting pin applies and holds as well, in that the divider allows for the injection of a second mixture into the mold cavity through the first runner and the second runner and thereby forms a second foamed article from the second mixture inside the mold cavity. In this case, Blundy is modified by Takeshita whereby the flow adjusting pin of Blundy is replaced with the shielding piece corresponding to the plug of Takeshita.
As to the applicant’s argument that if the alleged plug is removed, the injection operation in Takeshita may not function correctly, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues regarding independent claim 17, that the secondary reference, Altonen (US 9,610,721 B2), while disclosing branch sets of runners with a network located at different levels, does not disclose a divider disposed with a runner plate having multiple passages selectively connectable to runners, which is claimed in claim 17. The proposed combination would require more than a predictable substitution. It would require a complete reconstruction of Blundy’s manifold-based flow-adjust pin into a multi-passage divider architecture having a different number of runners than passages and configured to selectively block flow through at least one runner. Therefore, this combination would not be rendered obvious by the combination of Blundy and Altonen. (Applicant arguments/remarks 06/15/2026 pp. 4-5).
The examiner counter-argues as above that the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art not whether the features of the secondary reference can be incorporated into the primary features of the secondary reference. Here, claim 17 as interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, is not narrowly limited by the runner system of Altonen because the plurality of runners are designed to communicate with the molding device and its cavity as disclosed by Blundy which anticipates claim 1 and is the primary reference for claim 11. This plurality of runners would be considered by the examiner as obvious to combine with Blundy to form the injection molding system of claim 17 because, from a broadest reasonable interpretation, Altonen’s contribution is that the runners are communicable and extending with the runner plate and having a plurality of passages connectable to the runners wherein the number of the runners is different from the number of the passages. The amendments of the added phrases of “greater than” and “at least one” do not change this consideration because these are merely variations of a different number of runners from the number of passages.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Blundy (US 6,196,822 B1) IDS 04/29/2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Blundy anticipates an injection molding method (abs, Col. 1, ll. 6-12), comprising:
providing a molding device (Figs. 1, 2 Col. 2 ll.47-48 multicolor/component injection molding machine and a mold – 16) and a runner plate over the molding device (Fig. 1 Col. 2 ll. 49-51 platen – 12, false platen – 14, manifold – 10) , wherein the molding device comprises a first mold (Fig. 1 Col. 2 ll. 49-50 platen – 12 is the first mold with a mold – 16), a second mold over the first mold (Figs. 1, 2, 3 Col. 2 ll. 49-54 claim 1, manifold – 10 attached to platen (first mold) – 12, false platen (second mold) – 14) , and a mold cavity defined by the first mold and the second mold (See Fig. 2 Col.2 ll. 49-54 Col. 3 ll. 12-15 claim 1– where cavity is formed between the first mold (platen) – 12 and the second mold (false platen) – 14 where manifold is present – 10, which may be utilized in connection with any molten material, including foam and plastic),
the runner plate includes first and second runners communicable with the mold cavity and extending within the runner plate (Figs. 1, 2 Col. 1 ll. 63-65; Col. 3 ll. 7-15 molten material transferred through the first inlet port – 30 conveyed to a first inlet passage – 48 (first runner) within the manifold; molten material transferred through the second inlet port – 32 is in fluid communication with a second inlet passage – 50 (second runner) within the manifold – 10);
Moreover, Blundy further anticipates that the injection molding method further comprises injecting a second mixture into the mold cavity through the first runner and the second runner (Figs. 2, 3, 4 Col. 2 l. 65-Col. 3 l. 11 second inlet port – 32 in communication with a second inlet nozzle – 44 which receives a molten material from a second barrel – 46 where the molten material is transferred through the first inlet port –30 to a first inlet passage – 48 (first runner) and conveyed to a first inlet passage – 48 and the molten material transferred through the second inlet port – 32 is in fluid communication with a second inlet passage – 50 (second runner)) ; and
forming a second foamed article from the second mixture inside the mold cavity (Col. 3 ll. 12-15 manifold of present invention may be utilized in connection with any molten material, including foam). See Figs 6-8 and 2 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
845
1255
media_image2.png
Greyscale
placing a first divider within the runner plate (Fig. 2 Col. 3 ll. 32-34 flow adjusting pin – 72), wherein the first divider has a passage connectable to the first runner or the second runner (Fig. 3 Col. 3 ll. 7-11 molten material conveyed to a first inlet passage – 48; molten material is in fluid communication with a second inlet passage – 50) See also Fig. 3 (Col. 4 ll. 3-7 pin – 72 is in first position – 88 molten material from both the first inlet passage – 48 and the second inlet passage – 50 allowed to flow through junction – 70 and to exit passage way – 52 for use in molding a part);
injecting a first mixture into the mold cavity through the passage and the first runner (Fig. 2 Col. 2 l. 65-Col. 3 l. 4 first inlet port – 30 in fluid communication with a first inlet nozzle – 40 which receives a molten material from a first barrel – 42),
wherein the first mixture fails to flow into the mold cavity through the passage and the second runner (Figs. 4, 5 Col.4 ll. 13-27 pin – 72 is in second position – 90 or in a third position – 92, third channel – 86 allows molten material from the first inlet passage – 48 to flow directly to exit passage – 52 while second channel – 84 allows molten material from the second inlet passage – 50 to flow directly to the exit passageway – 52, but the flow from the second inlet passage – 50 is prevented from entering the junction and contact the periphery – 80 of the stem portion – 78 halting its flow); and
forming a first foamed article from the first mixture inside the mold cavity (Col. ll. 12-15 manifold of present invention may be utilized in connection with any molten material, including foam). See Figs. 3, 4, 5 corresponding to the first, second and third positions, respectively:
PNG
media_image3.png
974
1158
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
715
1224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Blundy anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the injection molding method further comprises removing the first divider from the runner plate after the formation of the first foamed article; and
placing a second divider within the runner plate, wherein the second divider is in different configuration from the first divider (Fig.4 Col. 4 ll. 13-19 pin – 72 is in second position – 90, third channel – 86 allows molten material from the first inlet passage – 48 to flow directly to the exit passage way – 52).
Regarding Claim 4, Blundy anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the injection molding method further comprises that placing the first divider within the runner plate further comprises:
aligning the passage with the first runner and misaligning the passage with the second runner (See Fig. 4 above where the third channel (passage) – 86 is aligned with the first inlet passage (first runner) – 48 and misaligned with the second inlet passage (second runner) – 50).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Blundy anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the injection molding method further comprises inserting a block into the passage after the formation of the first foamed article (See Figs 6, 7 Col. 4 ll. 3-12 where in the first position – 88, passage – 82 is blocked and the molten material can only flow unimpeded to the exit passageway – 52) and
where Blundy further anticipates in claim 6 that the block is insertable into or removable from the passage when the first divider is placed within the runner plate (Figs 6,8 Col. 3, ll. 53-64 where the flow adjusting pin (first divider) can be placed into a bore formed in the manifold – 10 and this implies that it can be removed).
Regarding Claim 7, Blundy anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the injection molding method further comprises:
rotating the first divider within the runner plate (Figs 6-8 Col. 3 ll. 61-64 knob portion – 74 extends from the manifold – 10 such that an operator can rotate with the aid of a standard tool or wrench the pin – 72 to the appropriate position);
injecting a third mixture into the mold cavity through the passage and the second runner, wherein the third mixture fails to flow into the mold cavity through the passage and the first runner (Fig. 5 Col. 4 ll. 19-26 when the pin – 72 is in its third position – 92 the second channel – 84 allows the molten material from the second inlet passage (second runner) – 50 to flow directly to the exit passageway – 52 and the flow of material from the first inlet passage – 48 is prevented from entering the junction – 70 where the flow is halted) ; and
forming a third foamed article from the third mixture inside the mold cavity (Col. ll. 12-15 manifold of present invention may be utilized in connection with any molten material, including foam). See Fig. 5 below:
PNG
media_image4.png
452
867
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Blundy anticipates all the limitations of claim 7 and further anticipates that the injection molding method further comprises rotating the first divider within the runner plate further comprises:
aligning the passage with the second runner and misaligning the passage with the first runner (See Fig. 5 above).
Regarding Claim 9, Blundy anticipates all the limitations of claim 7 and further anticipates that the injection molding method further comprises a dimension of the first runner is substantially greater than a dimension of the passage, and a dimension of the second runner is substantially greater than the dimension of the passage (Fig. 2 where length of the first runner (first inlet passage – 48) and the second runner (second inlet passage – 50 is longer than the exit passageway (passage) – 52 Col. 3 ll. 16-30 where the second end -68 of the exit passageway – 52 meets with the second end – 60 of the first inlet passage (first runner) – 48 and the second end – 64 of the second inlet passage (second runner) – 50 )
Regarding Claim 10, Blundy anticipates all the limitations of claim 1and further anticipates that the first divider is insertable into or removable from the runner plate when the runner plate is disposed on the molding device (Figs 6,8 Col. 3, ll. 53-64 where the flow adjusting pin (first divider) can be placed into a bore formed in the manifold – 10 and this implies that it can be removed).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blundy (US 6,196,822 B1) IDS 04/29/2025 in view of Takeshita (JP S62-28516U) with machine translation.
Regarding Claim 11, Blundy discloses an injection molding method (abs, Col. 1, ll. 6-12), comprising:
providing a molding device (Figs. 1, 2 Col. 2 ll.47-48 multicolor/component injection molding machine and a mold – 16) and a runner plate over the molding device (Fig. 1 Col. 2 ll. 49-51 platen – 12, false platen – 14, manifold – 10) , wherein the molding device comprises a first mold (Fig. 1 Col. 2 ll. 49-50 platen – 12 is the first mold with a mold – 16), a second mold over the first mold (Figs. 1, 2, 3 Col. 2 ll. 49-54 claim 1, manifold – 10 attached to platen (first mold) – 12, false platen (second mold) – 14) , and a mold cavity defined by the first mold and the second mold (See Fig. 2 Col.2 ll. 49-54 Col. 3 ll. 12-15 claim 1– where cavity is formed between the first mold (platen) – 12 and the second mold (false platen) – 14 where manifold is present – 10, which may be utilized in connection with any molten material, including foam and plastic),
the runner plate includes first and second runners that communicable with the mold cavity and extending within the runner plate (Figs. 1, 2 Col. 1 ll. 63-65; Col. 3 ll. 7-15 molten material transferred through the first inlet port – 30 conveyed to a first inlet passage – 48 (first runner) within the manifold; molten material transferred through the second inlet port – 32 is in fluid communication with a second inlet passage – 50 (second runner) within the manifold – 10);
Moreover, Blundy further discloses that the injection molding method further comprises injecting a second mixture into the mold cavity through the first runner and the second runner (Figs. 2, 3, 4 Col. 2 l. 65-Col. 3 l. 11 second inlet port – 32 in communication with a second inlet nozzle – 44 which receives a molten material from a second barrel – 46 where the molten material is transferred through the first inlet port –30 to a first inlet passage – 48 (first runner) and conveyed to a first inlet passage – 48 and the molten material transferred through the second inlet port – 32 is in fluid communication with a second inlet passage – 50 (second runner)) ; and
forming a second foamed article from the second mixture inside the mold cavity (Col. 3 ll. 12-15 manifold of present invention may be utilized in connection with any molten material, including foam). See Figs 6-8 and 2 above.
injecting a first mixture into the mold cavity through the second runner, wherein the first mixture fails to flow into the mold cavity through the first runner (See Fig. 5 above, Col. 4 ll. 19-26 when the pin – 72 is in its third position – 92 the second channel – 84 allows the molten material from the second inlet passage (second runner) – 50 to flow directly to the exit passageway – 52 and the flow of material from the first inlet passage – 48 is prevented from entering the junction – 70 where the flow is halted); and
forming a first foamed article from the first mixture inside the mold cavity (Col. 3 ll 12-15 manifold of present invention may be utilized in connection with any molten material, including foam).
However, while Blundy discloses a flow adjusting pin – 72 that is rotated there is no disclosure of a plug that is inserted or removed.
Takeshita discloses an injection mold characterized by a shielding piece that corresponds to the first plug as recited by claim 11 which is used to adjust the amount of resin flowing into a runner and where each of two of these shielding pieces correspond the a first and second runner where a concave part on each of the shielding pieces correspond to the grooves on each runner (Fig. 1 p. 3 1st paragraph ll. 1-10 shielding pieces 5 and t6 concave part – 7, 89 runner part – 4 with two branches – 4a & 4b). Moreover, this shielding piece (plug) can be placed or removed (p. 4 paragraph ll. 1-2 if you activate the shielding pieces, you can step part of the runner) See Fig. 1 2nd below:
PNG
media_image5.png
872
1015
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Blundy with the teaching of Takeshita, whereby the flow adjusting pin of Blundy is replaced with the shielding piece corresponding to the plug of Takeshita.
One with ordinary skill in the art would consider this plug as a feature because the recess of the sliding shielding piece deviates from a groove on the runner part thus imparting a more fine adjustment in the resin (molten material) flow due to an offset between a shielding piece and the runner part (Fig. 4 p. 3 2nd paragraph 1-14 shielding piece – 6 is slightly offset from the groove – 40 of the runner part – 4 and the inflow of molten resin to cavity type C2 is less than that for cavity type C1).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Blundy and Takeshita disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Blundy further discloses that the injection molding method further comprises removing the first plug from the first runner after the formation of the first foamed article (Fig. 4 Col. 3, ll.40-45 when flow adjusting pin -72 is turned to a second position – 90, the flow of molten material from the first inlet passage (first runner) – 48 is allowed to flow through the exit passageway – 52).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Blundy and Takeshita disclose all the limitations of claim 13 and Blundy further discloses that the injection molding method further comprises that after the removal of the first plug:
injecting a second mixture into the mold cavity through the first runner and the second runner (Fig. 3 Col. 4 ll. 3-12 where the pin (plug) – 72 is in its first position – 88, molten material from both the first inlet passage (first runner) – 48 and the second inlet passage (second runner) – 50 is allowed to flow through the junction – 70 to the exit passageway – 52 for use in molding a part); and
forming a second foamed article from the second mixture inside the mold cavity (Col. ll. 12-15 manifold of present invention may be utilized in connection with any molten material, including foam).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Blundy and Takeshita disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Takeshita further discloses that the injection molding method further comprises inserting a second plug into the second runner after the formation of the first foamed article (Fig. 1 p. 2 3rd paragraph p. 3 last paragraph – p. 4 first paragraph: shielding pieces can be used for multiple cavity types and as a selection technique and used as an insert).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Blundy and Takeshita disclose all the limitations of claim 15 and Takeshita further discloses that the injection molding method further comprises that the first plug and the second plug are insertable into or removable from the first runner and the second runner respectively when the runner plate is disposed on the molding device (Fig. 1, 2 p. 1 Scope of request paragraph (2); p. 3 1st paragraph shielding piece is installed in a sliding motion or on slide transfer).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blundy (US 6,196,822 B1) IDS 04/29/2025 in view of Altonen (US 9,610,721 B2).
Regarding Claim 17, Blundy discloses an injection molding system (abs, Col. 1, ll. 6-12), comprising:
a molding device (Figs. 1, 2 Col. 2 ll.47-48 multicolor/component injection molding machine and a mold – 16) and a runner plate over the molding device (Fig. 1 Col. 2 ll. 49-51 platen – 12, false platen – 14, manifold – 10) , wherein the molding device comprises a first mold (Fig. 1 Col. 2 ll. 49-50 platen – 12 is the first mold with a mold – 16), a second mold over the first mold (Figs. 1, 2, 3 Col. 2 ll. 49-54 claim 1, manifold – 10 attached to platen (first mold) – 12, false platen (second mold) – 14) , and a mold cavity defined by the first mold and the second mold (See Fig. 2 Col.2 ll. 49-54 Col. 3 ll. 12-15 claim 1– where cavity is formed between the first mold (platen) – 12 and the second mold (false platen) – 14 where manifold is present – 10, which may be utilized in connection with any molten material, including foam and plastic),
a runner plate, disposed over the molding device and the runner plate includes first and second runners communicable with the mold cavity and extending within the runner plate (Figs. 1, 2 Col. 1 ll. 63-65; Col. 3 ll. 7-15 molten material transferred through the first inlet port – 30 conveyed to a first inlet passage – 48 (first runner) within the manifold; molten material transferred through the second inlet port – 32 is in fluid communication with a second inlet passage – 50 (second runner) within the manifold – 10);
a divider disposed within the runner plate (Fig. 2 Col. 3 ll. 32-34 flow adjusting pin – 72), wherein the first divider has a passage connectable to the first runner or the second runner (Fig. 3 Col. 3 ll. 7-11 molten material conveyed to a first inlet passage – 48; molten material is in fluid communication with a second inlet passage – 50) See also Fig. 3 (Col. 4 ll. 3-7 pin – 72 is in first position – 88 molten material from both the first inlet passage – 48 and the second inlet passage – 50 allowed to flow through junction – 70 and to exit passage way – 52 for use in molding a part);
wherein the divider is configured to block a mixture flowing into the mold cavity through one of the first and second runners and allow the mixture flowing into the mold cavity through at least one of the runners and allow the mixture flowing into the mold cavity through at least one of the passages and another one of the runners (Figs. 4, 5 Col.4 ll. 13-27 pin – 72 is in second position – 90 or in a third position – 92, third channel – 86 allows molten material from the first inlet passage – 48 to flow directly to exit passage – 52 while second channel – 84 allows molten material from the second inlet passage – 50 to flow directly to the exit passageway – 52, but the flow from the second inlet passage – 50 is prevented from entering the junction and contact the periphery – 80 of the stem portion – 78 halting its flow).
However, Blundy does not disclose that instead of a first and second runner, that there is a plurality of runners communicable with the mold cavity and extending within the runner plate and that the divider disposed within the runner plate has a plurality of passages connectable to the runners wherein the number of the runners is greater than the number of the passages.
Altonen discloses a runner system for a multi-cavity injection molding system (abs) whereby there is a plurality of runners communicable with the mold cavity and extending withing the runner plate and with the divider disposed within the runner plate and having a plurality of passages connectable to the runners wherein the number of runners is different from the number of passages (Fig. 2, Col. 9, ll. 45-61 additional mold cavities – 32 and branch sets of runners – 64; runner systems may be designed and manufactured to split off at each branch in a number of directions; alternate configurations including odd number of splits, leading to any number of total cavities, whether even or odd, where Fig. 2 is illustrated in two dimensions, but the branches can be in a number of directions) and this can include that the number of runners is greater than the number of passages.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Blundy with the teachings of Altonen, whereby an injection molding system with a molding device, having first and second molds with the second mold engaged with the first mold, a runner plate and a divider as disclosed by Blundy, would also include that the runner plate would have a plurality of runners communicable with the mold cavity and extending within the runner plate and having a plurality of passages connectable to the runners wherein the number of the runners is different from the number of the passages.
One with ordinary skill in the art would consider and utilize this feature because using these plurality runner systems facilitates decreasing the runner size advantageously increasing options regarding mold cavity spacing (more closely together) and the number of total cavities can be increased, and this system reduces the energy needed to introduce molten polymer through the runner system and ultimately to the mold cavities (Col. 4 l. 60-Col. 5 l. 3).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Blundy and Altonen disclose all the limitations of claim 17 and Blundy further discloses that at least one of the passages is alignable with another one of the runners (See Fig. 4 above where the third channel (passage) – 86 is aligned with the first inlet passage (first runner) – 48 and misaligned with the second inlet passage (second runner) – 50).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Blundy and Altonen disclose all the limitations of claim 17 and Blundy further discloses that the system further comprises a block disposed within the passage to block the mixture flowing through the passage (See Figs 6, 7 Col. 4 ll. 3-12 where in the first position – 88, passage – 82 is blocked and the molten material can only flow unimpeded to the exit passageway – 52).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Blundy and Altonen disclose all the limitations of claim 17 and Blundy further discloses that the system further comprises that the divider is rotatable relative to the runner plate (Figs 6-8 Col. 3 ll. 61-64 knob portion – 74 extends from the manifold – 10 such that an operator can rotate with the aid of a standard tool or wrench the pin – 72 to the appropriate position) and is insertable into and removable from the runner plate (Figs 6,8 Col. 3, ll. 53-64 where the flow adjusting pin (first divider) can be placed into a bore formed in the manifold – 10 and this implies that it can be removed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights