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 .
IDS
The IDS’ entered 11/05/2024 and 08/01/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang (TW 200946318 A).
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches a mold apparatus (Figs. 1-11; pages 9-14; in particular Figs. 4-8: mold structure) comprising: a fixed mold (upper mold unit 10 with main channel 114) including a first parting surface (111); a first movable mold (lower mold unit 20) including a second parting surface facing the first parting surface (211); and a first core assembly composed of a fixed core (cores 12, 13) coupled to the first parting surface of the fixed mold (Fig. 6), and a first movable core (cores 22, 23) coupled to the second parting surface of the first movable mold (Fig. 6) and defining a cavity when being in contact with the fixed core (Fig. 6), wherein the first core assembly (cores 12, 13) includes: a rim-shaped first core (Figs. 5, 6: core 12 comprising rim 128) including a first cavity (groove 223, surfaces 125,123); and a second core (core 13) located inwardly (Fig. 6) of the first core, forming the same plane as the first core, and including a second cavity (cavity 234) having a size different (Fig. 6) from a size of the first cavity (Fig. 6: groove 223).
Regarding claim 2, Chang teaches the first core and the second core are detachably coupled to each other in the fixed mold and the first movable mold (Fig.4, cores 12, 13, the cores may be exchanged/detached).
Regarding claim 7, Chang teaches the first movable mold includes a third parting surface at a side opposite to the second parting surface, wherein the mold apparatus further includes: a second movable mold including a fourth parting surface facing the third parting surface; and a second core assembly composed of a second movable core coupled to the third parting surface of the first movable mold, and a third movable core coupled to the fourth parting surface of the second movable mold and defining a cavity when being in contact with the second movable core (Fig.4, a plurality of moveable cores are coupled to the parting surfaces).
Regarding claim 10, Chang teaches the second core assembly includes: a rim-shaped third core including a third cavity; and a fourth core located inwardly or outwardly of the third core, forming the same plane as the third core, and including a fourth cavity having a size different from a size of the third cavity (Fig.4-8, rim shaped cores, varying cavity sizes).
Regarding claim 11, Chang teaches the third cavity and the fourth cavity are different in size from the first cavity and the second cavity (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 12, Chang teaches the third core and the fourth core are detachably coupled to each other in the first movable mold and the second movable mold (Fig.4, 12 and 13).
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (TW 200946318 A).
Regarding claim 3, Chang teaches and injection line extending therethrough at one side thereof and connected to the first cavity (P0019)
Chang is silent to the first core includes a first injection line extending therethrough at one side thereof and connected to the first cavity, wherein the second core includes a second injection line extending therethrough at one side thereof and connected to the second cavity.
However, this amounts to duplication of elements. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 4, Chang teaches the fixed mold includes a sprue bush on a surface opposite to the first parting surface, wherein molten resin is injected into the sprue bush, wherein the sprue bush is connected to a hot runner, wherein the hot runner injects the molten resin into the first cavity and the second cavity via the first injection line (P0017, 114).
Regarding claim 5, Chang teaches the hot runner includes: a first hot runner connected to the sprue bush, extending through the fixed mold and the first movable mold, and formed in a first direction; a second hot runner branched from the first hot runner in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (P0017, 115).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (TW 200946318 A) as applied to claim 3, in view of Akahoshi (US 20070194488 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Chang is silent to cooling lines.
Akahoshi, in the same field of endeavor, molding, teaches the first core includes a first cooling line formed in a longitudinal direction to be spaced apart from the first cavity located inward (P0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mold of Chang with a cooling line to arrive at the claimed invention since the skilled artisan would have expected to be able to control temperature of the mold as taught by Akahoshi (P0046).
Modified Chang does not specifically teach the second core includes a second cooling line formed in the longitudinal direction to be spaced apart from the second cavity located inward.
This amounts to duplication of features. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (TW 200946318 A) as applied to claim 7, in view of Brown (US 6207087 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Chang is silent to a driver configured to allow the first movable mold to move in a front and rear direction in association with operation in the front and rear direction of the second movable mold, wherein the driver includes: a first rack located on a side surface of the fixed mold and a side surface of the first movable mold; a second rack located on the side surface of the first movable mold and a side surface of the second movable mold; and a pinion engaged with the first rack and the second rack.
Brown, in the same field of endeavor, molding, teaches a driver configured to allow the first movable mold to move in a front and rear direction in association with operation in the front and rear direction of the second movable mold (col.9, ll45-55, 26), wherein the driver includes: a first rack located on a side surface of the fixed mold and a side surface of the first movable mold; a second rack located on the side surface of the first movable mold and a side surface of the second movable mold (col.9, ll42-63, system); and a pinion engaged with the first rack and the second rack (col.9, ll54, 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mold system of Chang with the driver system of Brown to arrive at the claimed invention to automate the moving of the mold as taught by Brown (col.10, ll10-17).
Regarding claim 9, Brown teaches the driver allows the first rack and the second rack to be engaged with the pinion while maintaining an equal separation distance therebetween (fig.8, the racks maintain equal distance).
While Brown is not specific to a guide block, this would be obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art as there are only so many ways to maintain the equal distance between parts. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741