DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-7 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klobucar et al. (2008/0152752).
Regarding claims 1 and 21-22, Klobucar discloses an injection molding apparatus, comprising a plurality of mold cavities 20 in the mold 14, a first nozzle portion 68 with a first nozzle melt channel 58 coupled to a second nozzle portion 200 with a second nozzle melt channel 202 and a plurality of melt passages 204 that are angled to guide a melt stream toward extending melt passages 210 to deliver melt through mold gates 18 to a series of mold cavities 20, wherein the melt channel 202 and melt passages 204, 210 extended at an angle greater than 90° and less than 180° with the feeding port as shown below:
[AltContent: textbox (Feeding port )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Angle greater than 90 and less than 180 with the feeding portion)][AltContent: textbox (First feeding portion )]
PNG
media_image1.png
241
371
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 4, wherein the mold includes a top surface over the mold cavity and below a nozzle heater 85 and an interior sidewall defining the mold cavity 20.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the feeding port 58, 202 extends from the top surface toward the mold cavity.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the top surface under the heater 85 is substantially orthogonal to the interior sidewall of the cavity 20.
Regarding claims 5 and 22, wherein the passage connects the feeding port 58, 202 to the opening 18 and the feeding port 58, 202 is positioned above the passage 204.
Regarding claims 6 and 23, wherein the passage includes a first portion and the second portion coupled to the first portion.
[AltContent: textbox (First portion of the passage)][AltContent: textbox (Feeding port)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Third portion of the passage )][AltContent: textbox (Second portion of the passage)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (angle at 90°.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (angle between 90°-180°)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image1.png
241
371
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 8 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klobucar et al. (2008/0152752).
Regarding claims 8, 24-25, Klobucar et al. discloses a nozzle having different portions 68, 200, wherein the second portion 200 has extending melt passages 210 inside multiple portions connected to each other at different angles greater than or equal to 90˚as shown above.
However, Klobucar et al. fails to disclose that the first portion of the passage is substantially orthogonal to the second portion of the passage or that the second portion extends substantially parallel to a top surface of the second mold and extends within the second mold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the nozzle relative to the mold and orientation of different portions of the nozzle at different angles greater or smaller than 90˚relative to each other to ease the flow of the material through the nozzle into the mold, because the relative position and orientation of the nozzle and the mold would have been obvious matter of design choices and would not have modified the function of the nozzle or the mold for feeding and shaping the material.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 21-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 Thu-Khanh T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/Thu Khanh T. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights