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 without traverse of Invention 1 (claims 1-6 and 11-16) in the reply filed on 27 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-28 were added by the amendment filed on 27 July 2026. Claims 26 and 27 depend from claim 11, and claim 28 depends from claim 1, such that claims 26-28 are readable on elected Invention 1. Claims 21-25 are not readable on elected Invention 1 and are treated as set forth below.
Newly submitted claims 21-25 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons.
Invention 3. Claims 21-25, drawn to an insert for an injection molding tool.
Inventions 1 and 3 are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed. Claim 1 requires only “a first insert installed on the first portion, the insert comprising a protrusion that creates a gap relative to a sidewall of the second portion”, and claim 11 requires only “a first insert mounted on the first mold portion, the first insert having a protrusion that forms a gap with a sidewall of the second mold portion”. Neither claim 1 nor claim 11 requires a body configured to be received in a receiver slot of a first mold portion, a body forming a contiguous part of a sidewall of the first mold portion when received in the receiver slot, or a protrusion extending beyond that sidewall and terminating at an upper surface, each of which is required by claim 21. The subcombination has separate utility, such as use as a replacement component supplied apart from any injection molding tool, and use in an injection molding tool supplied with a material having a melt flow rate at or above the melt flow rate threshold required by claim 1. In this regard, claim 21 does not positively recite the first mold portion, the second mold portion, a material source, or any material, and recites the mold portions only as the environment in which the insert is used.
Applicant's remarks at page 6 state that claims 21-25 are readable on elected Invention 1 because the insert is a component of the injection molding tool of claims 1 and 11. That the claimed insert is a component of the claimed tool is what places claims 21-25 in the position of a subcombination with respect to Invention 1. It does not render those claims readable on the elected combination.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because Inventions 1 and 3 are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). The search for Invention 1 is directed to an injection molding tool having cooperating first and second mold portions, an insert carried by one of those portions, and a material source supplying a material having a melt flow rate below a threshold, and is accordingly anchored in B29C 45/2628 and related subclasses. Claim 21 of Invention 3 requires no cooperating mold portion, no material source, no material, and no melt flow rate, and instead defines the insert in terms of a body received in a receiver slot and a protrusion extending beyond a surface of that body and terminating at an upper surface. A search commensurate with the scope of claim 21 is therefore not confined to the injection molding tool art, and extends to mold and core components generally (e.g., B29C 33/00 and its subgroups) and to bodies having protrusions received in slots in arts unrelated to injection molding, requiring search strategies and queries materially different from those required for Invention 1.
As noted above, Applicant elected Invention 1 in the reply filed on 27 July 2026. Accordingly, claims 21-25 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b), 37 CFR 1.145, and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the other invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “100” is used to designate both the core in FIG. 1 and the cavity in FIG. 2. The specification states that “a cavity 102 of tool is the complementary component to the core 100”, and FIGS. 4A and 4B designate the cavity as 102. “100” should be replaced with “102” in FIG. 2.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” is used to designate both the injection molding tool in FIG. 7 and the main memory in FIG. 9. See the specification, which recites “a tool 10 (core 100 and cavity 102 in combination)” and “a main memory 10 and static memory 15”. Correction of the drawings and corresponding correction of the specification are required.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “120” is used in FIG. 3A to designate a feature of the insert 104, while the same reference character designates the aperture of the part 118 in FIGS. 4A and 5. The specification describes a vent 109 that is “placed within the protrusion 108 and extends through it”, and FIG. 8 designates such an opening as 109. Appropriate correction of the reference characters applied to the protrusion in FIG. 3A is required.
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 7 includes the word “Text” within the box designated Sensor(s) 132. This word does not constitute a descriptive legend and should be deleted. See 37 CFR 1.84(o).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is drafted in the language of the claims rather than in narrative form, including the terms “comprising” and “wherein”; because the second sentence, “An example injection molding tool that can be used to create both a part with an aperture and a part without an aperture”, is not a complete sentence; because it begins with the implied phrase “The present disclosure pertains to”; and because that phrase repeats the title of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is objected to as containing a misspelling. The title of record is “INJECTION MODLING METHODS, TOOLING, AND PRODUCTS”, while the title appearing on the first page of the specification is “INJECTION MOLDING METHODS, TOOLING, AND PRODUCTS”. Correction of the title of record is required.
Applicant is further advised that a new title clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed would be appropriate, as claims to the methods and products recited in the title are not presently under examination. The following title is suggested: “INJECTION MOLDING TOOLING WITH INTERCHANGEABLE INSERTS”.
Any amendment to the title should be submitted as an amendment to the title appearing on the first page of the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0039], “used to product the part 118” should be replaced with “used to produce the part 118”. Also, “substantially or completely free from flashover” should be replaced with “substantially or completely free from flashing”.
In [0040], “in perspective new in FIG. 4C” should be replaced with “in perspective view in FIG. 4C”.
[0040] states that the alternate insert 122 “produces a second part 124 that is different from the part 118 produced using the insert 104 of FIGs. 3A and 3B (the exception that there is no protrusion in the second part 124)”, and states in the following sentence that “[t]he second part 124 is identical to the first part 118 and has a textured outer surface but without the aperture”. The second part 124 is described as both different from and identical to the part 118. Further, the parenthetical refers to the absence of a protrusion in the second part 124, whereas the protrusion 108 is a feature of the insert 104, and the feature absent from the second part 124 is the aperture 120.
In [0040], the parenthetical beginning “(i.e., point of contact between the protrusion and the sidewall of the cavity.” is not closed.
[0040] states that “[w]hen the insert 104 is replaced with the alternate insert 122 to produce the second part 124, the second part 124 would have a blemish or imperfection due to the defect created in the sidewall 116 of the cavity 102”. The preceding sentences describe the consequences of using an insert having a protrusion that creates a shutoff area against the cavity. As written, the quoted sentence states that the second part produced according to the disclosed embodiment would have a blemish or imperfection, which is inconsistent with the remainder of the disclosure and with claim 2, which recites that the second part includes “no blemish or imperfection due to the presence of the protrusion”. It is suggested that the sentence be amended to read: “If the alternate insert 122 were used to produce the second part 124 under such circumstances, the second part 124 would have a blemish or imperfection due to the defect created in the sidewall 116 of the cavity 102.”
[0051] is substantially a repetition of paragraph [0050].
[0054] states that “the system can include optical sensors 134, such as laser sensors, can be effectively used to measure or infer the gap between the core and cavity parts of a mold after it is opened”. The sentence contains a duplicated verb.
[0058] states “[i]n one embodiment, the controller 130 that can automatically adjust the spacers 136 placed around an outer-periphery of the mold cavity where the parts are made”. The sentence is incomplete.
[0077] states that “the encoding and or decoding systems can be embodied as one or more application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) or microcontrollers”, and paragraph [0080] states that the terms “couple” and “coupling” are “used in a non-mechanical/physical context that refers to absorption of microwave energy by a material”. The disclosure does not describe any encoding or decoding system, and does not describe the absorption of microwave energy.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-6, and 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “the insert comprising a protrusion” should be replaced with “the first insert comprising a protrusion”, for consistency with “a first insert” recited earlier in the same limitation.
In claim 1, “closed to form an injection molding tool” should be replaced with “closed to form the injection molding tool”, for consistency with “An injection molding tool” recited in the preamble.
In claims 4 and 14, “shutoff the material source” should be replaced with “shut off the material source”. “Shutoff” is a noun, whereas the recited limitation calls for a verb.
In claim 5, the limitation “the controller being configured to infer a size of the gap based on output of the optical sensor” is presented as an element following “further comprising”, although the controller is recited in claim 4. It is suggested that this limitation be rewritten as “wherein the controller is further configured to infer a size of the gap based on output of the optical sensor”.
In claim 6, “the plurality of adjustable spacers are configured to be adjusted to maintain a size of the gap” should be replaced with “the plurality of adjustable spacers being configured to be adjusted to maintain a size of the gap”.
In claim 12, “designed to inject material into the mold” should be replaced with “designed to inject material into the injection molding tool”. Claim 11 does not recite a mold.
In claim 12, “a predefined threshold” should be replaced with “a melt flow rate threshold”, for consistency with claim 1 and to provide antecedent basis for “the melt flow rate threshold” recited in claim 14.
In claim 12, “where the aperture is free of flashing” should be replaced with “wherein the aperture is free of flashing”.
In claims 13 and 15, “the sidewall of the second portion” should be replaced with “the sidewall of the second mold portion”, for consistency with claim 11.
In claim 15, the limitation “the controller being configured to infer a size of the gap based on output of the optical sensor” is presented as an element following “further comprising”, although the controller is recited in claim 14. It is suggested that this limitation be rewritten as “wherein the controller is further configured to infer a size of the gap based on output of the optical sensor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites in the preamble “[a]n injection molding tool that can be used to create both a first part with an aperture and a second part without an aperture”. A recitation in the preamble of an intended use of an apparatus does not limit the body of the claim unless it gives life and meaning to the claim and is essential to understanding the limitations recited in the body. See MPEP 2111.02. In the present case, the body of claim 1 sets out a complete structure consisting of a first portion, a second portion, a first insert having a protrusion that creates a gap, and a material source, and the body does not rely on the quoted language for antecedent basis or for meaning. The quoted preamble language is accordingly directed to intended use and is not given patentable weight.
Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus that teaches all of the recited structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Claims 1 and 12 recite that material having a melt flow rate below a threshold is flowed or injected into the tool, and that a part having an aperture free of flashing is thereby produced. These recitations are directed to the manner in which the tool is operated and to the article produced by that operation, and do not impose structural limitations on the tool itself. The corresponding structural requirement is a material source capable of flowing material into the injection molding tool. That claims 4 and 14 recite a controller configured to act when the melt flow rate is above the threshold, while claim 1 recites material having a melt flow rate below the threshold, further indicates that the recited melt flow rate is a condition of operation of the tool rather than a structural characteristic of it.
Further, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP 2115. The material recited in claims 1 and 12, and the properties attributed to that material, are directed to the material worked upon by the claimed tool and do not limit the structure of the tool. Similarly, the first part and the second part recited in claims 1, 2, 6, and 16 are articles produced by the claimed tool and do not limit its structure, except insofar as the tool must define a cavity capable of producing them.
Claims 5 and 15 recite “an optical sensor that is configured to measure a location of the protrusion and a location of the sidewall of the second portion when the injection molding tool is open”, and further recite that the controller is “configured to infer a size of the gap based on output of the optical sensor”. Claims 5 and 15 are apparatus claims, and a recitation of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus that teaches all of the recited structural limitations. See MPEP 2114(II). The quoted limitations accordingly require that the optical sensor be able to measure the recited locations when the injection molding tool is open, and that the controller be able to infer a size of the gap from the output of the optical sensor. They do not require that either the measurement or the inference be performed while the injection molding tool is open, or at any other particular time.
The phrase “configured to” is not synonymous with “capable of” and requires that the apparatus be designed or constructed to perform the recited function. In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For purposes of examination, claims 5 and 15 are accordingly interpreted as requiring an optical sensor positioned such that it is able to measure a location of the protrusion and a location of the sidewall of the second portion when the first portion and the second portion are separated.
Claims 5 and 15 do not require that the optical sensor measure the recited locations directly, or to any particular degree of precision. The claims recite that the controller infers a size of the gap based on output of the optical sensor, which contemplates that the size of the gap is derived from the sensor output rather than measured by the sensor. Because the protrusion is carried by the first portion at a fixed offset from it, and the sidewall is a surface of the second portion, a sensor that measures a location of the first portion measures a location of the protrusion, and a sensor that measures a location of the second portion measures a location of the sidewall of the second portion. This interpretation is consistent with claim 24, which recites “an optical sensor carried in the protrusion”. Claims 5 and 15 contain no corresponding limitation.
Claim 11 recites “a second insert replaceable with the first insert, the second insert lacking the protrusion”. The first insert is recited as “having a protrusion that forms a gap with a sidewall of the second mold portion when the mold portions are closed”. Because the second insert is recited as being replaceable with the first insert, the two inserts are not installed in the tool at the same time, and the recitation that the second insert lacks “the protrusion” is not interpreted as requiring the absence of the particular protrusion carried by the first insert. For purposes of examination, claim 11 is interpreted as requiring that the second insert lack a protrusion that forms a gap with a sidewall of the second mold portion when the mold portions are closed. The second insert is not thereby required to be free of all protrusions.
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.
Claims 1-6, 12-16, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “melt flow rate” in claims 1, 4, 12, and 14 is used by the claims to mean the speed at which molten material flows into the mold, while the accepted meaning is a standardized measure of the mass of a thermoplastic extruded through a specified die over a specified interval under a specified load and temperature, as determined by a test such as ASTM D1238. The specification states that “[t]he melt flow rate refers to the speed at which the molten plastic flows into the mold cavity”, and further describes measuring the melt flow rate in real time using a sensor positioned within the injection unit, within the nozzle, or near the gate. A rate so measured is a condition of the injection process rather than a property of the material. The specification does not clearly redefine the term so as to put one of ordinary skill in the art on notice that the accepted meaning was not intended.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 14 recite a “melt flow rate threshold”, and claim 12 recites a “predefined threshold”. Neither the claims nor the specification assigns the threshold a value, a unit, or a test condition, and the specification does not identify any material or operating condition falling on either side of it. Claim 1 recites that the material has a melt flow rate below the threshold “to create a first part with an aperture due to presence of the protrusion and the gap”, and claim 12 recites that the melt flow rate is below the threshold, “resulting in formation of a part with an aperture due to presence of the protrusion and the gap”. In each instance the claim attributes the formation of the aperture to the protrusion and the gap rather than to the melt flow rate, and the results recited in the wherein clause of claim 1 are likewise attributed to the protrusion, one of those results being that the protrusion does not create a blemish in the sidewall of the second portion. The claims therefore do not establish that the threshold is determined by reference to any recited result. It is accordingly unclear how the threshold limits the claims. If the threshold is understood as determined by reference to the recited results, it imposes no requirement beyond results the claims attribute to the protrusion and the gap, and has no effect on scope. If instead the threshold is an independent value, neither the claims nor the specification provides any basis on which one of ordinary skill in the art could determine it. The recited result does not resolve the ambiguity, because the claims require that the aperture have “no flashing” while the specification describes the aperture as “substantially or completely free from flashover”, leaving unclear whether an aperture exhibiting some flashing falls within the claims. The metes and bounds of the threshold limitation accordingly cannot be ascertained.
For purposes of examination, “melt flow rate” is being interpreted consistently with the specification as the speed at which molten material flows into the mold, and not as a standardized property of the material. Claim 1 is being interpreted as requiring a material source capable of flowing material into the injection molding tool. The recited melt flow rate, the melt flow rate threshold, and the results stated to follow from them are not given further patentable weight, for the reasons set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above.
Claim 1 recites that “the protrusion does not create a blemish in the sidewall of the second portion”, and claim 2 recites that the second part includes “no blemish or imperfection due to the presence of the protrusion”. The specification describes damage to the sidewall of the cavity as arising from accumulated wear, stating that “after repeated cycles, an insert having a protrusion that creates a shutoff area against the cavity would leave an indelible mark on the sidewall of the cavity” ([0040]), and that “repeated cycles of the molding process can exacerbate these issues” ([0022]). A protrusion that contacts the sidewall may therefore create no blemish during an initial molding cycle while creating a blemish after some number of subsequent cycles. Neither claim specifies the point at which the recited condition is to be assessed, and the specification does not provide a standard for determining it. Because the specification attributes the condition of the sidewall to the number of cycles performed, it is unclear whether claims 1 and 2 require the recited condition after a single cycle, after a specified number of cycles, or throughout the service life of the tool, and the metes and bounds of these limitations accordingly cannot be ascertained. For purposes of examination, claim 1 is being interpreted as requiring that the protrusion be spaced from the sidewall of the second portion by the recited gap when the first portion and the second portion are closed, and claim 2 is being interpreted as reciting a second insert installable in place of the first insert, the second insert defining a mold surface that produces a part having the shape of the first part without the aperture.
Claim 6 recites “a plurality of adjustable spacers positioned around an outer-periphery of the first part”. The first part is recited in claim 1 as an article created by material flowed into the injection molding tool, and is not recited as a component of the tool. It is therefore unclear whether claim 6 requires that a first part be present within the tool, such that the claim is directed to the tool only when loaded with a molded part, or whether the recitation instead identifies a location within the tool at which the spacers are positioned. These readings differ in scope, and the claim does not indicate which is intended. Claim 16 recites corresponding spacers as being “positioned around an outer-periphery of a cavity that defines a first part created with the first insert”, and the specification describes the spacers 136 as being “placed around an outer-periphery of the mold cavity”. For purposes of examination, claim 6 is being interpreted as reciting a plurality of adjustable spacers positioned around an outer-periphery of a cavity in which the first part is formed.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 13, 15, 16, and 28 are rejected based on their dependency.
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, 2, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0074606 A1 (“Betz”).
Regarding claim 1, Betz discloses an injection molding tool (the injection moulding tool 1b; see Figure 4 and [0029]), comprising:
a first portion (the ejector-side mould platen 2; see Figure 4 and [0029]);
a second portion (the nozzle-side mould platen 3; see Figure 4 and [0029]);
a first insert installed on the first portion (the mould core 17, which is detachably fixed to the ejector-side mould platen 2 by a threaded bolt 28 screwed into a threaded hole 29 of that platen; see Figure 4 and [0033]), the insert comprising a protrusion (the portion of the mould core 17 that extends from the inner side of the mould platen 2 into the mould cavity 4 and terminates at the end face side 23; see Figure 4 and [0037]) that creates a gap relative to a sidewall of the second portion when the first portion and the second portion are closed to form an injection molding tool (the gap 53 that remains free between the end face side 23 of the mould core 17 and the inner side 24 of the nozzle-side mould platen 3, the mould core 17 having a dimension in the advance direction 14 that is slightly smaller than the width 30 of the mould cavity 4, and the mould core 17 being in its working position in the closed state of the mould platens 2, 3; see Figure 4, including the dotted line 52, and see [0033] and [0037]); and
a material source that flows material into the injection molding tool (the injection nozzle from which molten plastic material 9 is injected into the mould cavity 4 from the nozzle-side mould platen 3, the injection moulding tool being fixed to the chassis of an injection moulding machine; see [0029], and see also [0005]).
The remaining limitations of claim 1, namely that the material have a melt flow rate below a melt flow rate threshold, that a first part with an aperture be thereby created, that the aperture have no flashing, and that the protrusion not create a blemish in the sidewall of the second portion, are not given patentable weight for the reasons set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above. Betz nonetheless discloses that the width of the gap 53 is dimensioned so that plastic material 9 injected into the mould cavity does not get into the gap 53 at the injection pressure and the viscosity of the plastic material obtaining at the time (see [0037]), and that the purpose of maintaining the gap 53 is to prevent the surface fault 27 that appears on the visible side 25 of a moulded part without breakthrough when the mould core damages the inner side 24 (see [0032] and [0037]).
Regarding claim 2, Betz discloses a second insert that can be installed in place of the first insert (the cover part 33, which carries a threaded pin 34 that engages the same threaded hole 29 of the mould platen 2 that receives the threaded bolt 28 of the mould core 17, the mould core creating a breakthrough being replaced by a mould core which does not create a breakthrough; see Figure 6 and [0020] and [0034]) to produce a second part that is identical to the first part but having no aperture (the moulded part 7’ without breakthrough of Figure 7, as compared with the moulded part 7 with breakthrough 8 of Figure 5, the variants having in principle the same shape and dimension and differing merely by the presence of one or more breakthroughs; see [0010]). Under the interpretation set forth above, claim 2 recites a second insert installable in place of the first insert that defines a mold surface producing a part having the shape of the first part without the aperture, and the cover part 33 of Betz meets that requirement, creating only a non-disruptive recess 18 on the rear 19 of the moulded part 7’ (see [0034]).
Regarding claim 11, Betz discloses an injection molding tool (the injection moulding tool 1b; see Figure 4 and [0029]) comprising:
a first mold portion (the ejector-side mould platen 2; see Figure 4 and [0029]);
a second mold portion (the nozzle-side mould platen 3; see Figure 4 and [0029]);
a first insert mounted on the first mold portion, the first insert having a protrusion that forms a gap with a sidewall of the second mold portion when the mold portions are closed (the mould core 17 detachably fixed to the ejector-side mould platen 2 by a threaded bolt 28 screwed into a threaded hole 29, the portion of the mould core 17 extending into the mould cavity 4 and terminating at the end face side 23, and the gap 53 that remains free between the end face side 23 and the inner side 24 of the nozzle-side mould platen 3 when the mould platens 2, 3 are closed; see Figure 4 and [0033] and [0037]); and
a second insert replaceable with the first insert, the second insert lacking the protrusion (the cover part 33, which carries a threaded pin 34 engaging the same threaded hole 29 of the mould platen 2, the mould core creating a breakthrough being replaced by a mould core which does not create a breakthrough, and which creates only a non-disruptive recess 18 on the rear 19 of the moulded part 7’; see Figure 6 and [0020] and [0034]).
Under the interpretation set forth above, claim 11 requires that the second insert lack a protrusion that forms a gap with a sidewall of the second mold portion when the mold portions are closed, and does not require that the second insert be free of all protrusions. The cover part 33 of Betz meets that requirement.
Regarding claim 12, Betz discloses a material source designed to inject material into the injection molding tool (the injection nozzle from which molten plastic material 9 is injected into the mould cavity 4 from the nozzle-side mould platen 3, the injection moulding tool being fixed to the chassis of an injection moulding machine; see [0029], and see also [0005]). The recitations that the material have a melt flow rate below a predefined threshold, that a part with an aperture be thereby formed, and that the aperture be free of flashing are not given patentable weight for the reasons set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above.
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0074606 A1 (“Betz”), as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of US 2002/0079615 A1 (“Puniello”).
Betz does not disclose a vent aperture in the first insert and extending through the protrusion, for venting gas that accumulates between the sidewall of the second portion and the protrusion.
Puniello is directed to an apparatus and method for venting trapped air and gasses in a mold. See [0011]. Puniello discloses a split vent pin 40 comprised of at least two pin sections 42, 44 whose interior faces 46, 48 are configured so that when the sections are assembled the interior faces form a vent on the interior of the vent pin. See [0034]. A primary vent 52 is formed on the interior portion of the pin tip 54 and is in fluid connection with a secondary vent 56, which is also formed on the interior of the pin tip 54 and extends from the primary vent 52 to the base 58 of the vent pin, so that trapped air and gasses escape through the interior of the assembled pin. See [0035], and see Figures 3A and 4A. The opening of the primary vent that faces into the mold cavity is preferably sufficiently narrow as to prevent the formation of flash by the injected material, and is preferably less than approximately 0.002 inches wide in at least one direction. See [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the mould core 17 of Betz with a vent extending from its end face side 23 through the body of the mould core, as taught by Puniello, in order to exhaust air trapped in the gap 53. Betz maintains the gap 53 as a space into which plastic material does not enter (see [0037]), so that air displaced by the advancing plastic material has no other path by which to escape from the gap, and Puniello teaches that a vent so provided is dimensioned so as to prevent the formation of flash by the injected material (see [0036]), which is the same concern that leads Betz to dimension the gap 53 so that plastic material does not enter it. This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0074606 A1 (“Betz”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,419,858 (“Hata”) and US 2021/0086424 A1 (“Hakoda”).
Betz discloses a movement sensor 57 present in a carrier 58 moulded in the shape of a flange onto the mould core, the movement sensor being designed to measure the distance 59 to a reference surface 60 on the ejector-side mould platen in a non-contact manner (see [0038]). Betz does not disclose a sensor configured to measure the melt flow rate of the material, or a controller that includes a processor and memory, the controller being configured to receive output from the sensor and shut off the material source when the melt flow rate is above the melt flow rate threshold. As set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above, “melt flow rate” is being interpreted as the speed at which molten material flows into the mold.
Hata is directed to a method and apparatus for controlling fluctuation in the flow property of a resin material in an injection molding machine. Hata discloses that the injection pressure actually applied to the resin in an injection molding machine is sensed and the injection time is measured based upon a change in the injection pressure, and that the actual injection time reflects the actual flow property of the resin, the injection time being short when the flowability of the molten resin is high and long when the resin flowability is low. See column 3, lines 13-20. Hata further discloses means for obtaining a degree of fluctuation in the measured actual injection time with respect to a standard injection time, and for judging whether that degree of fluctuation is outside a predetermined range. See column 3, lines 1-6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the injection moulding tool of Betz with the injection-pressure sensor and injection-time measurement of Hata, so as to measure the speed at which molten material flows into the tool. Betz dimensions the gap 53 by reference to the injection pressure and the viscosity of the plastic material obtaining at the time (see [0037]), and measuring the actual flow property of the resin as taught by Hata allows those conditions to be held within the range in which the gap 53 remains free of plastic material. This is the application of a known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Modified Betz does not disclose a controller that includes a processor and memory, the controller being configured to receive output from the sensor and shut off the material source when the melt flow rate is above the melt flow rate threshold.
Hakoda is directed to an injection molding machine and a flash prevention method. Hakoda discloses a control unit 33 that controls the operation of the injection molding machine 1 and that is connected with a mold gap detection sensor 26, an injection pressure sensor 31, and a screw position sensor 32. See [0048]. The control unit 33 has a preset threshold, the threshold being the maximum allowable value within a range in which no flash occurs during molding. See [0052]. The control unit 33 constantly monitors the detected value during injection filling by receiving the signal from the sensor, and compares the detected value with the threshold. See [0053]. Upon determining an anomaly, the control unit 33 stops the operation of the injection molding machine 1. See [0072].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided modified Betz with a control unit as taught by Hakoda, configured to receive the output of the sensor of Hata, to compare that output against a threshold, and to stop the operation of the injection molding machine when the threshold is exceeded. Betz is directed to preventing damage to the inner side 24 and the resulting surface fault 27 on the moulded part (see [0032] and [0034]), and Hakoda sets its threshold at the maximum allowable value within the range in which no flash occurs and stops the machine when that threshold is exceeded (see [0052] and [0072]), thereby addressing the same defect by the same means. This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C). The control unit 33 of Hakoda stores a preset threshold and compares detected values against that threshold (see [0052] and [0053]), and accordingly includes a processor and memory. See MPEP 2112.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0074606 A1 (“Betz”) in view of US 2002/0079615 A1 (“Puniello”), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 5,419,858 (“Hata”) and US 2021/0086424 A1 (“Hakoda”).
Regarding claim 14, please see the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0074606 A1 (“Betz”) in view of US 5,419,858 (“Hata”) and US 2021/0086424 A1 (“Hakoda”), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 2017/0282423 A1 (“Murata”).
Betz discloses that it is expedient to determine a parameter correlated with the gap width 51, for example an electrical field strength, a capacitance, or a magnetic field, and that the electrical resistance between the mould core and the nozzle-side mould platen 3 is preferably determined because it is simple to implement. See [0040]. A contact element 69 is positioned on the end face side 23 of the mould core and is arranged so that it is flush with that end face side, and the mould platen 3 and the mould core are connected into a circuit 66. While the gap 53 is present the resistance between the mould core and the mould platen 3 is infinitely large, and when the end face side 23 and the contact element 69 come to rest on the inner side 24 of the nozzle-side mould platen 3 a current flows and a finite resistance is established, upon which an electronic evaluation unit 73 acts. See Figures 14 and 15 and [0040]. Betz accordingly discloses a sensor arrangement that senses the state of the gap between the protrusion and the sidewall of the second portion, and a controller that acts on the output of that sensor arrangement.
Modified Betz does not disclose that the sensor is an optical sensor, or that the sensor is configured to measure a location of the protrusion and a location of the sidewall of the second portion when the injection molding tool is open.
Murata is directed to an injection molding machine having control means for detecting and adjusting a parting gap C between a fixed mold 2c and a movable mold 2m. Murata discloses a non-contact distance measurement sensor 13 provided between the outer face 2cf of the fixed mold 2c and the outer face 2mf of the movable mold 2m, the sensor comprising a projection section 13p provided on the outer face 2cf and a reflecting section 13r provided on the outer face 2mf, laser light being projected from the projection section 13p and the reflected light being received so as to measure the distance between the projection section 13p and the reflecting section 13r. See [0043] and [0044], and see Figures 3 and 4. The projection section 13p and the reflecting section 13r are carried on support stays 14p and 14r that stand off the respective outer faces by a fixed distance, selected in a range from 10 to 100 millimeters. See [0045] and [0046]. The projection section 13p and the reflecting section 13r are provided so as to have a predetermined interval Lo during the mold clamping prior to the injection filling, and so as to be able to detect change in that interval. See [0049]. A gap status detector 11 and a molding machine controller 12 use the measured distance to detect the state of the parting gap C. See [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the electrical resistance measurement of Betz with the non-contact optical distance measurement of Murata, since Betz identifies the determination of a parameter correlated with the gap width 51 as the object of the measurement, expressly identifies alternative parameters including an electrical field strength, a capacitance, and a magnetic field, and selects the electrical resistance only because it is simple to implement (see [0040]). This is the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2144.06(II).
It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the projection section and the reflecting section of the resulting optical sensor on the mould platens 2 and 3 of Betz, since Betz monitors the same gap 53 from more than one pair of reference positions, namely from the end face side 23 of the mould core to the inner side 24 of the nozzle-side mould platen 3 (see [0040]) and from a carrier 58 on the mould core to a reference surface 60 on the ejector-side mould platen 2 (see [0038]). The selection of the reference positions from which the gap is monitored is accordingly a rearrangement of parts that would not modify the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) (In re Japikse).
Under the interpretation set forth above, a sensor that measures a location of the mould platen 2 measures a location of the protrusion, the protrusion being carried by that platen at a fixed offset, and a sensor that measures a location of the mould platen 3 measures a location of the sidewall, the inner side 24 being a surface of that platen. The projection section and the reflecting section, being arranged on the mutually facing outer faces of the two mould platens, are positioned to measure the separation of those platens when the platens are separated. The molding machine controller of the resulting combination is configured to infer a size of the gap from that measurement, as the molding machine controller 12 of Murata determines the state of the parting gap C from the measured distance (see [0043]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0074606 A1 (“Betz”) in view of US 2002/0079615 A1 (“Puniello”), US 5,419,858 (“Hata”), and US 2021/0086424 A1 (“Hakoda”), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 2017/0282423 A1 (“Murata”).
Regarding claim 15, please see the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0074606 A1 (“Betz”), as applied to claim 1 or 11 above, and further in view of US 5,662,948 (“Sjoberg”).
Regarding claim 6, and under the interpretation set forth above, claim 6 recites a plurality of adjustable spacers positioned around an outer-periphery of a cavity in which the first part is formed, the plurality of adjustable spacers being configured to be adjusted to maintain a size of the gap. Betz discloses adjustment screws 54 that pass through threaded holes 56 of a carrier 58 embodied as a type of flange moulded onto the mould core, the adjustment screws resting with their opposite ends on the outer side of the ejector-side mould platen 2, by the adjustment of which the gap width 51 can be varied (see Figure 11 and [0037]).
Betz does not disclose a plurality of adjustable spacers positioned around an outer-periphery of a cavity in which the first part is formed.
Sjoberg is directed to adjustable and removable trimline inserts for a molding tool having a cavity half 12 and a core half 14, the molding tools contemplated including injection molding tools. See column 1, lines 8-16. Sjoberg discloses an adjustable stop plate 20 that is attached to the core half 14 by a plurality of securing devices 34, which in the preferred embodiment are screws, the adjustable stop plate 20 being disposed around and adjacent to the second trimpiece 18 and having four adjuster trimlines 20a, 20b, 20c, and 20d that form a rectangle, and the stop plate 20 being vertically adjustable to provide for varying thicknesses of the workpiece 26. See Figure 1 and column 2, lines 55-67. Sjoberg further discloses that the stop plate comprises stop plate segments arranged end to end in a rectangle and each removably attached to the core half by screws, each segment being parallel to and spaced laterally outwardly from a respective one of the female trimlines, and that the stop plate is engageable with the confronting surface of the cavity half to establish the closed position of the molding tool and is vertically adjustable to provide for a desired thickness of the workpiece. See column 4, lines 7-17. In operation, the height that the adjustable stop plate 20 is raised up from the core half 14 adjusts the closing height of the cavity half 12 so that the thickness of the workpiece 26 is controlled, and when worn the adjustable stop plate 20 is replaced by detaching the securing devices 34. See column 2, line 65 through column 3, line 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the injection moulding tool of Betz with a plurality of adjustable stop plate segments distributed around the periphery of the mould cavity 4 and secured by screws, as taught by Sjoberg. Betz varies the gap width 51 by means of threaded adjustment elements that set the position of the mould core relative to the mould platens (see [0037]), and the stop plate segments of Sjoberg set the closed position of the two mold halves relative to one another (see column 4, lines 14-17 of Sjoberg), which in the injection moulding tool of Betz determines the width of the gap 53 that remains between the end face side 23 and the inner side 24. Betz is further directed to the progressive damage that occurs at the inner side 24 as the number of shots increases (see [0032]), and Sjoberg teaches that its stop plate segments are individually removable and replaceable when worn (see column 3, lines 1-3 of Sjoberg). This is the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 26, modified Betz discloses a plurality of adjustable spacers, and threaded fasteners securing the plurality of adjustable spacers, the plurality of adjustable spacers being adjustable to maintain a size of the gap (the stop plate segments of Sjoberg, arranged end to end in a rectangle, each removably attached by screws, and vertically adjustable to establish the closed position of the molding tool; see Figure 1 of Sjoberg and column 4, lines 7-17 of Sjoberg).
Modified Betz does not disclose that the plurality of adjustable spacers is positioned around an outer-periphery of the second mold portion, the stop plate segments of Sjoberg being attached to the core half, which corresponds to the ejector-side mould platen 2 of Betz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have attached the stop plate segments to the nozzle-side mould platen 3 of Betz rather than to the ejector-side mould platen 2. The stop plate segments of Sjoberg establish the closed position of the molding tool by bearing between the confronting surfaces of the two mold halves (see column 4, lines 14-16 of Sjoberg), and a stop that operates by bearing between two confronting surfaces performs the same function irrespective of which of those two surfaces it is attached to. A reversal or rearrangement of the parts of a device is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill where the change would not modify the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A) (In re Gazda) and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) (In re Japikse).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0074606 A1 (“Betz”) in view of US 2002/0079615 A1 (“Puniello”), US 5,419,858 (“Hata”), US 2021/0086424 A1 (“Hakoda”), and US 2017/0282423 A1 (“Murata”), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 5,662,948 (“Sjoberg”).
Regarding claim 16, please see the rejection of claim 6. Modified Betz further discloses that the plurality of adjustable spacers is a part of the first mold portion (the stop plate segments of Sjoberg being attached to the core half, which corresponds to the ejector-side mould platen 2 of Betz on which the mould core 17 is mounted; see Figure 1 of Sjoberg and column 4, lines 7-11 of Sjoberg).
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0074606 A1 (“Betz”), as applied to claim 1 or 11 above, and further in view of JP H01-206013 A (“Yamamoto”).
Betz discloses that the size of the gap 53 is typically in the hundredths of millimeter range. See [0037]. Betz does not disclose that the gap has a size of from 0.1 millimeter to 0.4 millimeter.
Yamamoto is directed to an injection molding method for molding resin molded products having through holes and resin molded products without through holes in the same mold. See page 2 of the provided translation. Yamamoto discloses an insert 5 installed on a core 3 and movable within a cavity 6 of the core toward the inner surface 2a of the cavity 2, and teaches that in order to mold a molded product requiring good appearance quality the tip surface 5a of the insert 5 is not brought into complete contact with the inner surface 2a, a small gap G being left between the tip surface 5a and the inner surface 2a so as to prevent molten resin from flowing in. See Figure 2 and page 5. Yamamoto explains that bringing the tip surface 5a into complete contact with the inner surface 2a scratches the inner surface 2a, and that as a result a defect in appearance occurs on the surface of a product molded without a through hole in the same mold, this tendency being particularly pronounced where a textured surface is created on the product. See page 5. Yamamoto further teaches that if the gap is too large resin will flow into it, and that from this perspective the gap is preferably approximately 0.1 to 0.2 millimeters in thickness, at which size burrs will not occur under normal injection molding conditions. See page 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sized the gap 53 of Betz at from 0.1 millimeter to 0.4 millimeter, as taught by Yamamoto. Yamamoto’s preferred range of approximately 0.1 to 0.2 millimeters lies within the claimed range, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Betz and Yamamoto address the same problem by the same means, each maintaining a deliberate clearance between an aperture-forming member and the opposing mold surface, the clearance being sized so that molten material does not enter it, in order to protect the mold surface that forms the visible surface of the part molded without the aperture. See [0032] and [0037] of Betz, and see pages 3 and 5 of Yamamoto. Further, Betz identifies the gap width 51 as varying depending on the plastic material used, the injection pressure, and the injection temperature and the resulting viscosity of the material, and requires only that plastic material not enter the gap. See [0037]. The gap width is accordingly a result-effective variable, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, see the abstract and Figures 1A-C of US 2020/0307043 A1 (“Kawakami”), Figure 5 of US 2017/0222194 A1 (“Kajita”), Figure 4 of US 2006/0099298 A1 (“Hayes”), Figure 3 of US 2002/0050137 A1 (“Nakagawa”), and the abstract of JP S61-202808 A (“Itou”).
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