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 .
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
fixing section in claim 1
injection section in claim 1
moving section in claim 1
control section in claim 1
injection amount adjustment mechanism in claim 1
detection section in claim 2
Wherein, in the specification, the teachings are:
Fixing Section 210, see [0028, 0032], see Fig. 3, appears to be mold halves.
Injection section 230, see [0032, 0042], Fig. 3, appears to be nozzles and associated runners, etc.
Moving section 240, see [0042], see Fig. 3. Appears to be conventional movement actuators, see movable member 241, screw shaft 244, moving motor 246.
Control section 500, see [0018, 0045-0054], see Fig. 1, see in [0018] that this is a computer that includes processors, memory, and/or input/output interface.
Injection amount adjustment mechanism 330, see [0050-0051, 0084-0086], Fig. 3, wherein plunger 332 and shutoff pin 334 are mentioned as being included by the [0084-0086].
Detection section 250, see [0044, 0049], see Figs. 3 and 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QUAIL (US 7580771 B2).
Re: 1, see QUAIL teaching of an injection molding device comprising:
a removable fixing section that has a fixed molding die (see fixed mold platen 16) formed with a gate opening and a movable molding die (see movable platen 17) configured for molding die clamping with the fixed molding die (see mold halves 12, 14), and in which a cavity (see cavities 22, 24) is defined by the fixed molding die and the movable molding die;
an injection section (see injection unit 18) that injects a molding material containing a thermosetting material and a polymerization initiator that initiates a polymerization reaction of the thermosetting material (this is seen as intended use of the apparatus, as this is material worked upon, does not further limit the claimed structure); and
a moving section that moves the injection section relative to the fixed molding die mounted on the fixing section (see moving section that includes tie bars 19, 20, and of the stroke cylinders, see Col. 5, lines 60-64),
further teaching of a machine controller 80,
and further seen in QUAIL, the molding die is mounted on the fixing section (see the mold halves 12, 14 upon the platens 16, 17).
Regarding, “the control section that executes a first control of, in a state where the heater is controlled to heat the molding die, controlling the moving section to bring the nozzle into contact with the fixed molding die and controlling the injection amount adjustment mechanism to inject the molding material from the nozzle opening, through the gate opening, and into the cavity and a second control of, after the elapse of a predetermined time from completion of the first control, controlling the moving section to separate the nozzle from the fixed molding die.”
QUAIL also teaches of sensors 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, and can address demands of heat, pressure, and vibration in the molding machine, see Col. 6, lines 63-66. Further, see teaching of control of the clamp pressure, and of the monitoring of the mold movement, and pressure sensing and measuring of hydraulic and/or cavity pressures, see Col. 13, line 64 to Col. 14, line 39, wherein, there is controlling of the clamp tonnage, and of closure path of the platen and tie bars. See also Fig. 5, concerning the clamp tonnage over time, which would include control of the predetermined time from the control and the moving section. Whereupon, the QUAIL teaches of an algorithm for calculating the fill profile and optimum fill profile, and further including refining of processing parameters including melt temperature and injection piston position (seen as injection amount adjustment mechanism), see Col. 9, line 50 to Col. 10, line 17.
Regarding of “wherein the injection section includes a nozzle that has a nozzle opening and that injects the molding material from the nozzle opening and an injection amount adjustment mechanism that adjusts the injection amount of the molding material from the nozzle opening” and “at least one of the fixing section and the molding die includes a heater that heats the molding die, the injection molding device further includes a control section configured to control the moving section, the injection amount adjustment mechanism”, it is noted that in the background information, QUAIL does teaches of the plunger in a shooting pot, see Col. 2, lines 9-30, and further, the teaching of the fill profile that includes plunger speed and velocity control via algorithm, see Col. 10, lines 7-48.
Regarding the heater, QUAIL does not specifically teach of the heater. However, QUAIL teaches in background info of heater in the hot runner of the mold, see Col. 3, lines 9-31.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the QUAIL with the additional teaching by the background information of QUAIL regarding the use of heaters as it allows maintaining the temperature of the resin flow.
Re: 2 (upon 1), further comprising:
a detection section that detects a contact pressure between the nozzle and the fixed molding die, wherein in the first control, before the molding material is injected into the cavity, the control section presses the nozzle against the fixed molding die until the contact pressure detected by the detection section becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value.
See teaching of pressure sensor by QUAIL that includes clamping tonnage/pressure.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified QUAIL as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of HORIUCHI (US 2014/070139 A1).
Re: 3 (upon 2), wherein the control section interrupts execution of the first control if the contact pressure does not become equal to or greater than a predetermined value even after the elapse of a predetermined time from when the nozzle and the fixed molding die came into contact with each other.
QUAIL does not teach of the measured contact pressure would result in interrupting execution.
See in HORIUCHI of nozzle-touch, see in [0031], of the pressure contact F to a predetermined magnitude, wherein a detected driving current is reached/exceeded for a current that corresponds to a predetermined pressure, a brake is applied to activate to lock the nozzle touch motor M.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the control of the modified QUAIL with the nozzle touch application as taught by HORIUCHI as it allows for controlling the operation upon reaching the desired pressure detected.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified QUAIL as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of BEALER (US 2004/0208951 A1).
Re: 4 (upon 1), wherein in the second control, the control section separates the nozzle from the fixed molding die at a speed higher than the speed at which the nozzle is brought into contact with the fixed molding die in the first control.
QUAIL does not teach of the higher speed in separation.
BEALER teaches in [0007] of the rapid opening and closing and another motor for slower speed but with higher torque, particularly of exerting clamping force on the mold section once the molds are brought into clamping positions. The different speeds can be seen, particularly in clamping of the molds in the mold closing compared to the speed of the mold opening.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modify the control of the modified QUAIL with the high speed in separation, allowing for different speeds and thereby of torque to change the clamping force upon the molds.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified QUAIL as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of FUNAKOSHI (US 2002/0001703 A1).
Re: 5 (upon 1), wherein after executing the second control, the control section separates the movable molding die from the fixed molding die at a speed of equal to or less than 5 mm per second.
QUAIL does not teach of the claimed speed.
FUNAKOSHI in [0097-0098] teaches of a mold opening speed ranging from 0.1 mm/s to 3 mm/s, wherein the mold opening speed is controlled to the desired speed for ensuring the desired properties of the molded product in the mold opening.
Here, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of mold opening of the modified QUAIL with the speed of 0.1-3 mm/s as taught by FUNAKOSHI as this is seen under KSR, see MPEP 2143, as applying a known technique (of FUNAKOSHI) to a known device (method or product, this of the modified QUAIL) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Although the reference does not explicitly state the claimed range, there is an overlapping ranges taught in the reference and the claimed range. Here, regarding the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QUAIL as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ACTON (US 3622050) and KOCH (US 2015/0273746 A1).
Re: 6 (upon 1), wherein the injection section includes a flow path through which the molding material flows, the flow path includes a first flow path extending in a first direction, which is a direction along the vertical direction and a second flow path extending in a second direction, which intersects the first direction, and the injection amount adjustment mechanism includes a shutoff pin that moves in the first flow path along the first direction and a plunger that moves in the second flow path along the second direction.
See QUAIL teaching of the plunger speed, injection rate, velocity and pressure control, see Col. 9, line 50 to Col. 10, line 14. QUAIL fails to teach of the flow paths and of the plunger.
Regarding the first and second flow paths, this is known in the injection arts as the use of an accumulator for metered injection, and further as seen in the teaching by ACTON of a metered compound applying nozzle that includes a first flow path (see nozzle 6) with a control needle 27 that moves between open and closed position for the nozzle, and with a second flow path that intersects, see flow along inlet 11 that is controlled via plunger as seen by piston 18 and control stem 13, see Figs. 1 and 2. The arrangement of the nozzle design of ACTON allows for a nozzle for injecting liquids, particularly of relatively viscous liquids, see abstract, which allows for controlled predetermined amounts for injecting/applying from the nozzle.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified QUAIL with the first and second flow path teaching as taught by ACTON as a known arrangement for the injection of the material that particularly for viscous liquids and for controlled predetermined amounts that are injected.
ACTON does not specifically teach of the plunger moving along the second direction that intersects the first direction, only of the second flow path that is in the second direction. However, this is seen as an alternate arrangement of the plunger design within an accumulator, and as seen in relevant prior art reference of KOCH, of the accumulator arrangements with plungers 22, 23 of the second flow paths (see second melt chambers) 24, 25 of the cylinder housings 20, 21, that intersect with the first flow path (first melt channel) 9 with the shut off needle 13 that moves along the first flow path. This arrangement are a known variation that one skilled in the art that would recognize and would incorporate into the modified teaching of QUAIL for known alternate structures of the system as preferred for the design.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the plunger arrangement of the modified QUAIL with that of KOCH for a known alternative arrangement of the design. This is seen as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, in this case of the plunger arrangement of KOCH into the modified QUAIL, see KSR rational, MPEP 2143.
Re: 7 (upon 1), wherein the injection amount adjustment mechanism includes a shutoff pin that moves along a direction in which the molding material flows inside a flow path through which the molding material flows and an end portion of the shutoff pin on the nozzle opening side is a protruding shape without a flat surface.
See teaching by ACTON of the control needle that is seen as the shut off pin, and as seen, there is a needle has an elongated portion that extends forth for closing the nozzle opening, see Figs. 1 and 2, see control needle 27, see end near nozzle outlet/orifice 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, of particular note:
KODAIRA (US 2022/0032519 A1), see [0103] of the valve pin 6 and shut off nozzle 49 and hot runner nozzle 5, see also Fig. 7. See also [0118], controller 70 that controls the injection molding machine 200, and molds A, B. The controller being a processor such as CPU and interfaces sensors or actuators.
OLARU (US 2015/0197049 A1) teaches in [0057,0103, 0104], with shut off pin that can be operated by the processing sensor and with the controller, for entering the nozzle melt channel and block the flow of the respective gate, see also in [0064] of the temperature sensor and control of the temperature and the heated flow in the manifold 10.
THOMPSON (US 3647309 A) teaches in Col. 3, line 73 to Col. 4, line 26, the teaching of solenoids 103, 104 for the mold closing of the mold and the speed control to the closed position. This is via the control circuit modules 55-64 for the desired operating sequences via logic circuits, see Col. 3, lines 40-72.
GILLET (WO 2015004272 A1) teaches of injection nozzle with first and second flow paths with plunger 44 in the second flow path and having a downstream valve 20 or control rod 22 and further of a central rod 30 for the first flow path.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao S 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744