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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed July 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7 remain pending in the application. Claims 4, 7 are withdrawn.
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.
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 1-2, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson (WO2003/006226), further in view of Wolfsberger (US 11,090,847).
Regarding claim 1, Pearson discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 6A-6E, a method for manufacturing a resin pipe by injecting a molten resin from one end portion toward an other end portion of a cavity extending in a mold by an injector, and then introducing a fluid or solid assist material into the cavity to discharge an extra molten resin of the molten resin from the cavity, thereby curing the molten resin in a cylindrical shape remaining in the cavity, the method comprising:
introducing the assist material from the other end portion toward the one end portion of the cavity to cause the extra molten resin discharged from the cavity to flow back into the injector; and
injecting the back-flowed molten resin from the one end portion toward the other end portion of the cavity by the injector when manufacturing a next new resin pipe (i.e., Pearson discloses as illustrated in Figs. 6A-6E, the valve member 110 is opened allowing molten plastics material to be injected from the barrel 104 into the mould cavity 108 (here, the mould cavity is considered to provide as a pipe (page 34, lines 1-16)) without packing the plastics (page 27, lines 32-35). Thereafter the gas injection step is commenced (page 27, line 37). As illustrated in Fig. 6D, after a predetermined time delay, whilst continuing to maintain gas pressure, the pressure is reduced from the moulding machine screw or piston 130 and/or the valve member 110 is opened, which enables the gas to progressively expel molten plastics material from the mould cavity 108 back into the machine cylinder or barrel 104 (for reusage later or in a new filling process), the gas forcing the piston 130 away from the mould (page 28, lines 9-16)).
Pearson discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 9A-9F, once the plastics tubular component is formed (e.g., as shown in Fig. 9D) and ejected from the mould, post moulding operations are necessary in order to trim off the cone portions at each end (i.e., the cone-shaped sections or configurations 206 and 208). This forms the final hollow tube or component (page 38, lines 15-22). Thus, Person discloses that, the resin pipe is molded by the cured resin, and portions of the cured resin that do not form the resin pipe are integrated with both end portions of the resin pipe, and the molded resin pipe is taken out from the mold together with the portions of the cured resin that do not form the resin pipe, and the resin pipe is manufactured by cutting off said portions of the cured resin (i.e., the cone-shaped sections or configurations 206 and 208) from the resin pipe taken out from the mold.
However, Pearson does not disclose that, the resin pipe is a non-straight pipe comprising a pipe passage that is bent.
In the same field of endeavor, manufacturing a plastic frame, Wolfsberger discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the frame 10 having multiple bending is made by injecting thermoplastic melt into the closed shaping tool/cavity. As illustrated in Fig. 2, a fluid 22 is pressed through an injector (col. 4, lines 27-42).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Pearson to have the resin pipe made as Wolfsberger teaches that it is known to have the resin pipe having multiple bending.
It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (see MPEP2143).
Regarding claim 2, Pearson discloses that, the present invention is suitable for a wide range of thermoplastics resin materials, including glass-fibre materials which require early pressurization in order to achieve acceptable surface finishes (page 20, lines 31-35).
Regarding claim 6, Pearson does not disclose that, connecting an introduction path which introduces the assist material into the cavity to the mold in a state of not protruding into the inside of the cavity.
Wolfsberger discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, a fluid 22 is now pressed in the arrow direction of the arrow A through an injector (col. 4, lines 40-43). It is noticed that, there are no any portions of the injector protruded into the cavity.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Pearson to have the device for manufacturing a resin pipe as Wolfsberger teaches that it is known to have no any portions of the injector being protruded into the cavity. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 have been fully considered.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) in claim 1-2 that Pearson either alone or in combination fails to disclose that “the resin pipe is molded by the cured resin, and portions of the cured resin that do not form the resin pipe are integrated with both end portions of the resin pipe, and the molded resin pipe is taken out from the mold together with the portions of the cured resin that do not form the resin pipe, and the resin pipe is manufactured by cutting off said portions of the cured resin from the resin pipe taken out from the mold”, it is not persuasive.
At least, Pearson discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 9A-9F, once the plastics tubular component is formed (e.g., as shown in Fig. 9D) and ejected from the mould, post moulding operations are necessary in order to trim off the cone portions at each end (i.e., the cone-shaped sections or configurations 206 and 208). This forms the final hollow tube or component (page 38, lines 15-22).
Regarding arguments (for newly added claim) in claim 6 that Pearson discloses, a gas introduction tube protrudes into the inside of the cavity, it is persuasive.
However, Wolfsberger discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, a fluid 22 is now pressed in the arrow direction of the arrow A through an injector (col. 4, lines 40-43). It is noticed that, there are no any portions of the injector being protruded into the cavity.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
