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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 12-20) in the reply filed on 03/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Newly submitted claims 21-31 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 21-31 are directed to patentably distinct species (disclosed in Fig. 3A; [0034-0035]; and Fig. 5; [0047]) for distinct designs/configuration of injection molding device.
The claimed species are independent or distinct because when they are compared to each other they require at least one mutually exclusive characteristic that differentiates them in terms of structure, design, and/or function/operation. In addition, the species/embodiments are disclosed as being different/distinct from each other. Furthermore, the species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-31 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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) in view of Pollmann (US 2012/0038083).
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) in view of Pollmann (US 2012/0038083) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nakamura (US 4,889,480).
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).
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mowery (US 2002/0076466) teaches a sequential mold lifter for a molded part forming device comprises at least first (32), second (34) and third (36) lifter segments that slidably engage one another (see Figs. 1-3; [0011-0015]).
Wright (US 4,207,051) teaches an injection-molding machine has a fixed (11) and a movable outer platen (12) bracketing a movable intermediate platen (13) (see Figs. 1-3; column 2, lines 45-65).
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
Prosecution Insights