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 .
Status of the application
This is a final rejection in response to the Applicant's remarks and amendment filed on 09/01/2026. Claims 1-11 are cancelled, claims 12-20 are previously presented and claims 21-31 are withdrawn. Accordingly claims 12-20 are examined herein.
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) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US 2014/0265016 – of record) in view of Pollmann (US 2012/0038083 – of record).
Regarding claim 12, Nguyen teaches an injection molding system (200) (see Fig. 1; [0002]), comprising:
a molding device (100), comprising a first mold (40), a second mold (20) over the first mold, and a middle mold (30) between the first mold and the second mold (see Fig. 2; [0048]),
wherein the second mold comprises a supporting unit (upper mold carrier (220)) (see Fig. 2; [0051])..,
wherein the middle mold (30) comprises an outer middle mold and an inner middle mold surrounded by and movable relative to the outer middle mold (see annotated Fig. 4B below; [0055] and [0057-0058]).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Nguyen does not teach that the support unit extendable from and retractable into the second mold and facing the first mold.
In the same field of endeavor, Injection molding devices, Pollmann teaches injection-molding system 100 includes a first mold plate (102) and second mold plate (104), the opposing inner surfaces of which define a mold cavity (106); wherein the second mold plate includes a retractable core (108) extendable from and retractable into the second mold plate and facing the first mold plate (see Fig. 1A; [0025-0028]). Pollmann teaches that side surfaces of retractable core (108) are substantially flush to the opposing side surfaces of the second mold plate (104), and thus prevent molten plastic from flowing between the retractable core (108) and the second mold plate (104) (see [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus as taught by Nguyen in view of Pollmann with the support unit extendable from and retractable into the second mold and facing the first mold as such is known in the art of injection molding given the discussion of Pollmann above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would prevent molten plastic from flowing between the retractable core and the second mold plate (see [0027] of Pollmann).
Regarding claim 13, Nguyen in view of Pollmann further teaches the injection molding system, further comprising:
a position control mechanism (articulation mechanism (300) and middle mold carrier (230)), configured to control movement of the middle mold (30) to engage the middle mold with the first mold (40) and the second mold (20) (see Figs.3A-3B and Figs. 4A-4B; [0058] of Nguyen).
Regarding claim 14, Nguyen in view of Pollmann further teaches the injection molding system, wherein the second mold (20) is moveable toward the middle mold (30) and the first mold (40) by the position control mechanism (see Fig. 4A-4B; [0056-0061] of Nguyen).
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US 2014/0265016 - of record) in view of Pollmann (US 2012/0038083 - of record) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nakamura (US 4,889,480 - of record).
Regarding claim 15, Nguyen in view of Pollmann teaches the injection molding system as discussed in claim 12 above.
Nguyen further teaches the injection molding system, wherein the outer middle mold (30) includes a first portion and a second portion movable relative to the first portion (i.e. the middle mold carrier (30) movable relative to a first carrier and a third carrier, implying it has portions that move relative to each other) (see Figs. 3A-3B and Figs. 4A-4B ;[0009] and [0012]). However, Nguyen in view of Pollmann does not teach that the inner middle mold includes a first slider and a second slider movable relative to the first slider.
In the same field of endeavor, Injection molding devices, Nakamura teaches a slide core mold (1) for injection molding (see Fig. 1), comprises slider blocks (42) slidably provided and reciprocated in an association with engagement and disengagement of a core mold and a cavity mold; and the slider blocks
movable relative to each other (see Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 40-68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus as taught by Nguyen in view of Nakamura with the inner middle mold includes a first slider and a second slider movable relative to the first slider as such is known in the art of injection molding given the discussion of Pollmann above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would enable efficient access to the mold cavities for loading/unloading parts/inserts and also the sliders will allow for faster demolding of complex parts, reducing cycle time and improve productivity (see [0027] of Pollmann).
Regarding claim 16, Nguyen in view of Pollmann and Nakamura further taches the injection molding system, wherein the first portion of the outer middle mold (30) is movable relative to the first slider, and the second portion of the outer middle mold is movable relative to the second slider (see Figs. 3A-3B and 4A-4B; [0009] and [0012] of Nguyen; and Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 52-68 and column 3, lines 1-10 of Nakamura).
Regarding claim 17, Nguyen in view of Pollmann and Nakamura further taches the injection molding system, wherein the first slider and the second slider (42) are movable toward and away from each other (see Figs. 1-3; column 2, lines 52-68 and column 3, lines 1-10 of Nakamura).
Regarding claim 18, Nguyen in view of Pollmann and Nakamura further teaches the injection molding system, wherein the first mold comprises a first portion (240), a second portion (42) and a third portion (43), and the first portion and the second portion of the first mold are disposed on two opposite sides of the third portion of the first mold (see Figs. 3A-3B and 4A-4B; [0054-0055], [0062-0063] and [0072] of Nguyen).
Regarding claim 19, Nguyen in view of Pollmann and Nakamura further teaches the injection molding system, wherein the first slider and the second slider (42) are disposed over the third portion of the first mold and between the first portion and the second portion of the first mold (see Figs. 1-3; column 2, lines 52-68 and column 3, lines 1-10 of Nakamura).
Regarding claim 20, Nguyen in view of Pollmann and Nakamura further teaches the injection molding system, wherein the first slider (42)is at least partially surrounded by the first portion of the outer middle mold, and the second slider (42) is at least partially surrounded by the second portion of the outer middle mold (see Figs. 1-3; column 2, lines 52-68 and column 3, lines 1-10 of Nakamura).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/01/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Nguyen fails to disclose an inner middle mold surrounded by and movable relative to an outer middle because per [0057], middle mold portion 30 and middle mold carrier 230 move together as a unit. This argument is not persuasive.
Nguyen discloses that, “for any of the embodiments described herein,” the mold carriers 220, 230, 240 may be formed as hollow frames, and that the mold portions 30,40 may be removably attached within the framework of the mold carriers 230, 240 (see Fig. 18B; [0089] of Nguyen). Middle mold portion 30 (inner middle mold) is therefore positioned within, and surrounded by, the hollow frame of middle mold carrier 230 (outer middle mold). Because middle mold portion 30 is removably attached within carrier 230, it is capable of being moved relative to carrier 230, e.g., detached from and remove out of the framework.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 12 requires only that the inner middle mold be removable relative to the outer middle mold. The claim does not recite when the relative movement occurs, the mechanism producing it, or that it occur during molding cycle. The portion 30 and carrier 230 travel together during the articulation described in [0057-0059] does not negate the disclosed capability of relative movement. This interpretation is consistent with Applicant’s specification, which describes the outer middle mold portions and sliders as “movable and detachable” (see [0039] of the instant publication). Accordingly, Nguyen in view of Pollman teaches all the limitations of claim 12, and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that Pollman fails to disclose the claimed middle mold, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pollman was not relied upon for the middle mold limitations. It was relied upon for a supporting units extendable from and retractable into the second mold and facing the first mold (see Fig. 1A-1B; ¶0025-0028¶ of Pollman), which Applicant does not dispute.
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Nakamura fails to disclose the claimed middle mold and therefore fails to cure the alleged deficiencies of Nguyen in view of Pollman with respect to claim 12. This argument is not persuasive.
As set forth above with respect to claim 12, including an outer middle mold (middle mold carrier 230, formed as a hollow frame) an inner middle mold (middle mold portion 30, removably attached within the framework of carrier 230) surrounded and movable relative to the outer middle mold (Fig. 18b; [0089] of Nguyen). Nakamura was not relied upon to teach the middle mold of claim 12, so no deficiency exist for Nakamura.
Applicant further argues that Nakamura lacks a three-plate mold system and any surrounding relationship between an outer middle mold and an inner middle mold, and that slider blocks 42 of Nakamura are mounted on both sides of core mold 3. This arguments is not persuasive.
Nakamura was not relied upon only for its teaching of a mold member comprising a first slider and a second slider movable relative to one another (see Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 40-68). The three-plate structure and the surrounding relationship are taught by Nguyen. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Moreover, 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). That Nakamura’s slider block 42 mounted on core mold 3 rather than on a middle mold does not detract from Nakamura’s teaching of forming a mold member as relatively movable slider blocks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply that teaching to Nguyen’s middle mold portion 30, forming the inner middle mold as a first slider and a second slider movable relative to one another in order to enable efficient access to the mold cavities for loading/unloading parts/inserts and also the sliders will allow for faster demolding of complex parts, reducing cycle time and improve productivity. (“If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill"). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ludwig (US 3,319,301) discloses a relevant injection molding apparatus having a ring (18) surrounding a sole plate (15), the sole plate being movable height wise within the ring relative to a lasted upper supported on the ring comprising separable halves (see Figs. 3-7; column 2, lines 28-45).
Herbert (US3,305,895) teaches a mold assembly comprises a last (10), a mold ring (18) formed of two halves (18a,18b), and a sole plate (16) carried by a vertically displaceable ram (14) and movable within and relative to the mold ring to vary the depth of the mold cavity (see Figs. 1-4; column 3,lines 10-50).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 PM.
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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights