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 I (claims 1-12 and 18-20) in the reply filed on 08/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/13/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be corrected to “[[a]] the respective outfeed branch” (line 17), “[[a]] the respective outfeed branch” (line 20), “[[a]] the respective outfeed branch” (line 17)
Claim 3 should be corrected to “at the close[[d]]-together position” (line 7).
Claim 6 should be corrected to “[[a]] the respective outfeed branch” (line 2).
Claim 18 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 6. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the corresponding partitions” in line 34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear whether the limitation means (1) the same as “a respective partition element of the plurality of partition elements”, or not. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “the respective partition element(s).”
Claims 2-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the flow rates” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “flow rates.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the flow rates in the outfeed branches” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “flow rates in the outfeed branches.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the flow rates in the outfeed branches” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “flow rates in the outfeed branches.”
Claim 19 recites the limitation “from the charging configuration to the discharging configuration” in lines 22-23. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these underlined terms in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “from a charging configuration to a discharging configuration.”
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the flow rate” in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “a flow rate.”
Claim 19 recites the limitations “a charging configuration” (lines 29-30) and “a discharging configuration” (lines 31-32). There are ambiguous antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitations mean (1) the same as “the charging configuration” (line 22) and “the discharging configuration” (lines 22-23), respectively, or (2) another different configurations. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 19.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matteo (US 20130115325 A1).
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions.
The limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details.
The limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) for further details.
Regarding claim 1, Matteo teaches an apparatus for producing objects in continuous cycle from plastic material (fig. 1, abstract, [0039]), comprising:
a distributor unit (rotary preform-molding carousel 2), including
an infeed duct (a fixed part 23a defining a channel for passage of the molten plastic), having an inlet configured to receive a continuous pressurized flow of molten plastic, and
a plurality of outfeed branches (lateral channels 26), each outfeed branch having an outlet and being in fluid communication with the infeed duct through a distribution zone (distributor 28), the distributor unit defining an internal volume between the inlet and the outlets (figs. 1, 4; [0064-0066, 0084]);
a forming station (molding device 9) for forming a plurality of objects by compression moulding, including
a plurality of female elements (a mold portion including cavity 95), positionable at the plurality of outfeed branches of the distributor unit and defining a corresponding plurality of seats (figs. 6-9; [0097-0104]),
a plurality of male elements (mold punch 95a), acting in conjunction with the plurality of female elements to delimit a corresponding plurality of forming cavities to form a plurality of objects from plastic material by compression (figs. 6-9; [0097-0101]);
a metering unit, including
an outlet valve system having a plurality of outlet valves (nozzle-plug 31), each outlet valve being positioned in a respective outfeed branch, wherein the outlet valve system is switchable between an open configuration and a closed configuration (figs. 6-9; [0097, 0100-0106]);
a plurality of partition elements (injector-feeder 34), each of the plurality of partition elements being positioned in a respective outfeed branch, upstream of the respective outlet valve, and each of the plurality of partition elements being movable between an upper limit position (i.e., the most distant position from the nozzle) and a lower limit position (i.e., the least distant position from the nozzle) to vary the internal volume of the distributor unit (figs. 6-9; [0101-0106]),
a group of actuators, each actuator of the group of actuators being connected to a respective partition element of the plurality of partition elements to move it between the upper limit position and the lower limit position (figs. 6-9; [0086]: the injector-feeder 34 is actuated by a pneumatic cylinder 33),
wherein the metering unit includes the following operating configurations:
a charging configuration, wherein the outlet valve system is in the closed configuration to interrupt a flow of plastic feeding out from the distributor unit (figs. 6-9; [0086-0089]: the spool valve opens when the injector is in the forward position (FIG. 9), and then, there is closure of the seal of nozzle 31 and the piston of the injector/feeder moves back (i.e., the most distant position from the nozzle) under the action of the front of molten plastic under pressure received from the hot chamber);
a discharging configuration, wherein the outlet valve system is in the open configuration to allow plastic to be discharged from the internal volume of the distributor unit (figs. 6-9; [0086-0089]: then, the spool valve closes and, simultaneously, the plug of the nozzle of the cavity opens and starts the compression movement of the injector/feeder, and as the spool valve is closed during advance of the feeder (i.e., the least distant position from the nozzle), the melt is caused to pass into the molding cavity through the nozzle-plug 31.);
a control unit ([0129]: fully automated and controlled by a computer), configured for
switching the metering unit from the charging configuration to the discharging configuration and vice versa (figs. 6-9; [0086-0089]), and for
driving one or more of the actuators of the group of actuators to move the corresponding partitions from the upper limit position to the lower limit position, with the metering unit in the discharging configuration, and from the lower limit position to the upper limit position, with the metering unit in the charging configuration, so as to make a plurality of doses of plastic, the doses being fed to the plurality of seats (figs. 6-10; [0086-0089]; the injector-feeder 34 is actuated by a pneumatic cylinder 33, spool valve 36 is actuated by a pneumatic cylinder 32).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Matteo teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the outlet valve system comprises a plurality of pushers (nozzle-plug 31), each pusher being located at a respective outfeed branch and being movable reciprocally between a retracted position of non-interference with a flow of plastic in the respective outfeed branch ([0089]: the spool valve closes and simultaneously, the plug of the nozzle of the cavity opens and starts the compression movement of the injector/feeder, and the melt is caused to pass into the molding cavity through the nozzle-plug 31), and a plurality of advanced positions where it closes the respective outfeed branch ([0089]: the spool valve opens when the injector is in the forward position, and there is then closure of the seal of nozzle 31 and the piston of the injector/feeder moves back under action of the front of molten plastic under pressure received from the hot chamber), and wherein the pusher is configured to push the respective dose through the outlet, by moving in an extraction direction between the advanced positions so as to keep the respective outlet valve closed ([0089, 0106], fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Matteo teaches that apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is connected to the outlet valves to control them in synchronized manner ([0089, 0106]: plug 31 is opened by the pneumatic operating cylinder 32 and simultaneously spool valve 36 closes to prevent the melt going back into the hot chamber 30; then, feeder 34 via plug 31 injects the melt into the mould cavity 95; [0129]: fully automated and controlled by a computer; figs. 6-9).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matteo (US 20130115325 A1) in view of Baldisserri* (WO 2022064373 A1) (*citation is based on the equivalent US publication – US 20230271370 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Matteo teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the apparatus comprises a flow sensor, configured to measure a flow parameter, representing a flow rate of the plastic flowing in the infeed duct, and wherein the control unit is connected to the sensor to receive the flow parameter.
Baldisserri teaches a continuous cycle system for molding objects from plastic material. The system comprises a flow sensor, configured to measure a flow parameter, representing a flow rate of the plastic flowing in the infeed duct (fig. 1 and [0117]: flow rate sensor for molten plastic material at the outlet 21B of the cylinder 21, configured to measure the flow rate of the plastic material at the outlet 21B of the cylinder 21, for example, the molten plastic material flow rate sensor may be associated with the pushing device (where provided), and the flow rate sensor is configured to capture the parameter denoted p11 in this disclosure; of note, here, the flow rate at the outlet 21B corresponds to a flow rate of the plastic flowing in the infeed duct), and wherein the control unit is connected to the sensor to receive the flow parameter (figs. 7-9 and [0119, 0134]: the processing unit 6 may also receive from the group of sensors 5 monitoring parameters 52, selected from the parameters denoted p1-p11 and may generate alert data 53 as a function of the monitoring parameters 52; for example, if a monitoring parameter 52 undergoes an unusual variation, the processing unit may generate alert data 53 indicating a possible error; the sensor system (5), is configured to capture monitoring parameters (52) representing the flow rate of the molten plastic material at the outlet (21B) of the cylinder (21)).
In the same field of endeavor of a molding machine based on injection-compression in a continuous cycle (Matteo: abstract and fig. 1; Baldisserri: [0061-0062] and fig. 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the apparatus of Matteo to further include a sensor system configured to monitor operating parameters and a control unit to perform feedback control based on the monitored parameters as taught by Baldisserri in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of automated and continuous manufacturing of molded articles with improved quality and consistency and higher throughput with minimum intervention of human error (Baldisserri: derived from [0001-0003]). Of note, upon the modification, the flow rate at the outlet 21B of the cylinder 21 of the extruder in fig. 1 of Baldisserri corresponds to a flow rate of the plastic flowing in the infeed duct 23a of fig. 4 of Matteo.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matteo (US 20130115325 A1) in view of Maruhashi (JP 2000117819 A).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Matteo teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the apparatus comprises a compensation unit, positioned upstream of the plurality of outfeed branches of the distributor unit and in fluid communication with the infeed duct, the compensation unit defining an internal compensation volume, variable from a maximum volume configuration to a minimum volume configuration, with the metering unit in the discharging configuration, and from the minimum volume configuration to the maximum volume configuration, with the metering unit in the charging configuration (claim 7) and a compensation actuator, connected to the compensation unit to vary the compensation volume between the maximum volume configuration and the minimum volume configuration (claim 8).
Maruhashi teaches a method for producing thermoplastic preform using a preform molding apparatus 4 ([0001, 0004]). The apparatus includes comprises a compensation unit (accumulator 20), positioned upstream of the plurality of outfeed branches (injection molding machines 30a-d) of the distributor unit (a distribution device 50 including supply channels 51a-d) and in fluid communication with the infeed duct, the compensation unit defining an internal compensation volume (including a cylinder 21 for storing molten material), variable from a maximum volume configuration to a minimum volume configuration, with the metering unit in the discharging configuration, and from the minimum volume configuration to the maximum volume configuration, with the metering unit in the charging configuration and a compensation actuator (a plunger 24 that can move up and down with a fluid pressure device 25 for driving the plunger 24), connected to the compensation unit to vary the compensation volume between the maximum volume configuration and the minimum volume configuration (fig. 2 and [0057]; fig. 3 and [0060]).
In the same field of endeavor of an injection molding machine in a continuous cycle (Matteo: abstract and fig. 1; Maruhashi: [0001, 0011] and fig. 2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the apparatus of Matteo to further include a compensation unit and its actuator as taught by Maruhashi in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of controlled supplying of a molten material into a molding stream with minimum intervention of operating conditions of extruder or readiness of the molten material therein so as to continuously manufacture molded articles with improved quality and consistency. Of note, upon the modification, the flow discharged from the compensation unit 20 in fig. 2 of Maruhashi flows to the infeed duct 23a of fig. 4 of Matteo.
Claims 2, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matteo (US 20130115325 A1) in view of Rosan (US 20140061960 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Matteo teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that for each outfeed branch, the control unit is programmed to receive a check parameter and to drive the one or more actuators according to the check parameter, the check parameter representing a difference between a volume or a mass of one dose feeding out from the outfeed branch and a reference value for the volume or mass of the dose.
Rosan teaches a mold filling system directing the flow of molten plastic material from an extruder and allocating the molten material to a plurality of nozzles through the use of independently operated, variable valves (abstract, fig. 2). Rosan teaches that for each outfeed branch, the control unit is programmed to receive a check parameter (e.g., whether corresponding to an appropriate flow profile) and to drive the one or more actuators according to the check parameter, the check parameter representing a difference between a volume or a mass of one dose feeding out from the outfeed branch and a reference value for the volume or mass of the dose ([0019]: the controller is programmed to cause the valves to open, close or be positioned at an intermediate stage on an individual or zoned basis; [0020]: the controller is programmed with a flow profile corresponding to the appropriate mold, and the controller applies the appropriate flow profile to the flow controller and directs the respective manifold valves or nozzles to open to a position corresponding with the appropriate volume and/or rate of flow of molten plastic material; figs. 2 and 3A).
In the same field of endeavor of an injection molding machine (Matteo: abstract and fig. 1; Rosan: abstract, figs. 2, 4), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the apparatus of Matteo with a controller programmed to control one or more actuators corresponding to the respective outfeeds and controlling a feeding rate/volume, based on a reference value/parameter, as taught by Rosan in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of controlled supplying of a molten material into a forming system so as to continuously manufacture molded articles with improved quality and consistency. Of note, upon the modification, the flow controller of Rosan directs to control of the respective manifold valves or nozzles, including the pneumatic cylinder 33 and/or the stopper 37 of Matteo ([0086-0087]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Matteo, the same as applied to claim 2, teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is programmed to derive an imbalance parameter and to drive one or more of the actuators according to the imbalance parameter, the imbalance parameter representing an imbalance between the flow rates of the plastic in the outfeed branches of the plurality of outfeed branches (Rosan: [0019]: the controller is programmed to cause the valves to open, close or be positioned at an intermediate stage on an individual or zoned basis; [0020]: the controller is programmed with a flow profile corresponding to the appropriate mold, and the controller applies the appropriate flow profile to the flow controller and directs the respective manifold valves or nozzles to open to a position corresponding with the appropriate volume and/or rate of flow of molten plastic material; figs. 2 and 3A). The motivation to combine applied to claim 2 equally applies here.
Regarding claim 11, modified Matteo, the same as applied to claim 2, teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, comprising an extruder (extruder 1), connected to the infeed duct to feed it with the continuous flow of pressurized molten plastic (Matteo: [0065]: at least one extruder 1 which has the function of plasticating the polymer from the solid granular state to fluid by means of the energy supplied by heaters and by the frictional forces that are generated by the action of the extruder screw; figs. 1, 2, 4), wherein the control unit is programmed to control the extruder (Matteo: [0129]: fully automated and controlled by a computer) according to one or more of the following parameters:
a check parameter (e.g., whether corresponding to an appropriate flow profile), representing a difference between a volume or a mass of one dose feeding out from the outfeed branch and a reference value for the volume or mass of the dose (Rosan: [0019]: the controller is programmed to cause the valves to open, close or be positioned at an intermediate stage on an individual or zoned basis; [0020]: the controller is programmed with a flow profile corresponding to the appropriate mold, and the controller applies the appropriate flow profile to the flow controller and directs the respective manifold valves or nozzles to open to a position corresponding with the appropriate volume and/or rate of flow of molten plastic material; figs. 2 and 3A);
a flow parameter representing a flow rate of the plastic flowing in the infeed duct (id.);
an imbalance parameter, representing an imbalance between the plastic flow rates in the outfeed branches of the plurality of outfeed branches (id.).
The motivation to combine applied to claim 2 equally applies here.
Regarding claim 12, modified Matteo, the same as applied to claim 2, teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 comprising an extruder (extruder 1) and a volumetric pump (volumetric pump), positioned downstream of the extruder and connected to the infeed duct to feed it with the continuous flow of pressurized molten plastic (Matteo: [0065]: at least one extruder 1; [0069]: a conventional injection machine of the extruding-pumping type; [0093]: a preferred variant of said first part of the plant, the extruder functions as a volumetric pump that generates the required delivery of plastic with a discharge pressure of about 200 bar), wherein the control unit is programmed to control the volumetric pump according to one or more of the following parameters:
a check parameter (e.g., whether corresponding to an appropriate flow profile), representing a difference between a volume or a mass of one dose feeding out from the outfeed branch and a reference value for the volume or mass of the dose (Rosan: [0019]: the controller is programmed to cause the valves to open, close or be positioned at an intermediate stage on an individual or zoned basis; [0020]: the controller is programmed with a flow profile corresponding to the appropriate mold, and the controller applies the appropriate flow profile to the flow controller and directs the respective manifold valves or nozzles to open to a position corresponding with the appropriate volume and/or rate of flow of molten plastic material; figs. 2 and 3A);
a flow parameter representing a flow rate of the plastic flowing in the infeed duct (id.);
an imbalance parameter, representing an imbalance between the plastic flow rates in the outfeed branches of the plurality of outfeed branches (id.).
The motivation to combine applied to claim 2 equally applies here.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matteo (US 20130115325 A1) in view of Lawless (US 20200078998 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Matteo teaches all the limitations including a distributor unit, a forming station, a metering unit, and a control unit as recited (see above, the 102 rejection of claim 1), but does not specifically teach that the apparatus further comprises a sensor system including a plurality of sensors, each of the plurality of sensors being configured for detecting, in real time, a flow parameter correlated with the flow rate of the plastic in each outfeed branch, wherein the control unit is connected to the sensor system and to the outlet valve system to drive the outlet valves as a function of the flow parameter.
Lawless teaches a system for controlling an injection molding machine having a mold forming a cavity (abstract, fig. 1). The system includes a sensor system comprising a sensor being configured for detecting, in real time, a flow parameter correlated with the flow rate of the plastic in an outfeed branch (fig. 1 and [0032]: sensor 128 located in immediate upstream of the mold cavity 122 measures any characteristics of the molten plastic material 114 that are known and used in the art, such as, a back pressure, temperature, viscosity, and/or flow rate ), wherein the control unit is connected to the sensor system ([0012, 0013]: a controller is adapted to control operation of the injection molding machine according to an injection cycle, and a first sensor coupled to the injection molding machine and the controller; [0030, 0034, 0037]: the controller 140 is in signal communication with at least one sensor and any other components of the machine).
In the same field of endeavor of an injection molding machine (Matteo: abstract and fig. 1; Lawless: abstract, fig. 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the apparatus of Matteo to further include a sensor in an outfeed branch/nozzle to feedback a flow parameter measured therefrom for controlling an injection molding process by a controller as taught by Lawless in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of controlled supplying of a molten material into a forming cavity so as to continuously manufacture molded articles with improved quality and consistency (Lawless: derived from [0003-0006]). Upon the modification, it would have been also obvious that the controller is connected to the outlet valve system to drive the outlet valve (nozzle-plug 31) as a function of the flow parameter (Matteo: figs. 6-9; [0097, 0100-0106]: nozzle-plug 31; [0129]: fully automated and controlled by a computer; Lawless: [0030, 0034, 0037]: the controller 140 is in signal communication with at least one sensor and any other components of the machine). Furthermore, in the case where a reference does not disclose a plurality of parts, mere duplication of the parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B) (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Here, multiplication of the sensor of the modified Matteo into the respective outfeed branches and correlation the flow parameters obtained from the respective sensor for controlling an injection molding process by a controller do not produce a new or unexpected result in forming a plastic article.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,515,384 B2 in view of Matteo (US 20130115325 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of Reference
1. An apparatus for producing objects in continuous cycle from plastic material, comprising:
a distributor unit, including
an infeed duct, having an inlet configured to receive a continuous pressurized flow of molten plastic, and a plurality of outfeed branches, each outfeed branch having an outlet and being in fluid communication with the infeed duct through a distribution zone, the distributor unit defining an internal volume between the inlet and the outlets;
a forming station for forming a plurality of objects by compression moulding, including a plurality of female elements, positionable at the plurality of outfeed branches of the distributor unit and defining a corresponding plurality of seats, a plurality of male elements, acting in conjunction with the plurality of female elements to delimit a corresponding plurality of forming cavities to form a plurality of objects from plastic material by compression;
a metering unit, including
an outlet valve system having a plurality of outlet valves, each outlet valve being positioned in a respective outfeed branch , wherein the outlet valve system is switchable between an open configuration and a closed configuration;
a plurality of partition elements, each of the plurality of partition elements being positioned in a respective outfeed branch, upstream of the respective outlet valve, and each of the plurality of partition elements being movable between an upper limit position and a lower limit position to vary the internal volume of the distributor unit,
a group of actuators, each actuator of the group of actuators being connected to a respective partition element of the plurality of partition elements to move it between the upper limit position and the lower limit position,
wherein the metering unit includes the following operating configurations:
a charging configuration, wherein the outlet valve system is in the closed configuration to interrupt a flow of plastic feeding out from the distributor unit;
a discharging configuration, wherein the outlet valve system is in the open configuration to allow plastic to be discharged from the internal volume of the distributor unit;
a control unit, configured for
switching the metering unit from the charging configuration to the discharging configuration and vice versa, and for
driving one or more of the actuators of the group of actuators to move the corresponding partitions from the upper limit position to the lower limit position, with the metering unit in the discharging configuration, and from the lower limit position to the upper limit position, with the metering unit in the charging configuration, so as to make a plurality of doses of plastic, the doses being fed to the plurality of seats.
1. An apparatus for producing objects in continuous cycle from plastic material, comprising:
a distributor unit, including
an infeed duct, having an inlet configured to receive a continuous pressurized flow of molten plastic from an extruder unit, and a plurality of outfeed branches in fluid communication with the infeed duct through a distribution zone, each outfeed branch having an outlet, the distributor unit defining an internal volume between the inlet and the outlets so that the molten plastic can flow from the inlet to the outlets in a feed direction;
a forming station for forming a plurality of objects by compression moulding, including a plurality of female elements, positionable at the plurality of outfeed branches of the distributor unit and defining a corresponding plurality of seats, a plurality of male elements, acting in conjunction with the plurality of female elements to delimit a corresponding plurality of forming cavities to form the plurality of objects from plastic material by compression;
a metering unit, including
an outlet valve system having a plurality of outlet valves, each outlet valve being positioned in a respective outfeed branch;
an additional valve system, positioned upstream of the outlet valve system relative to the feed direction, wherein the outlet valve system and the additional valve system are each switchable between an open configuration and a closed configuration, a portion of the internal volume between the outlet valve system and the additional valve system constituting a working portion of the internal volume,
a plurality of partition elements, disposed between the additional valve system and the outlet valve system, each of the plurality of partition elements being movable between an upper limit position and a lower limit position to vary the working portion of the internal volume of the distributor unit,
wherein the metering unit includes:
a charging configuration, in which the outlet valve system is in the closed configuration and the additional valve system is in the open configuration, to allow plastic to accumulate in the working portion of the internal volume,
a discharging configuration, in which the additional valve system is in the closed configuration and the outlet valve system is in the open configuration, to allow plastic to be discharged from the working portion of the internal volume;
a control unit, configured to switch the metering unit from the charging configuration to the discharging configuration, with the plurality of partition elements positioned at the lower limit position, and from the discharging configuration to the charging configuration, with the plurality of partition elements positioned at the upper limit position, so as to make a plurality of doses of plastic, the doses being fed to the plurality of seats.
As presented above, the underlined limitations and the paragraphs including the underlined limitations of Instant Application and Reference are substantially identical as structural features. The bold limitation of Instant Application is taught by Matteo (see above, the 102 rejection of claim 1), and such combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to transfer the molten material into a mold cavity in a controlled manner . The shaded limitation of Reference is not included in claim 1 of Instant Application. Therefore, claim 1 merely broadens the scope of claim 1 of Reference by eliminating some elements, in view of Matteo.
Claims 6 and 18 of Instant Application
Claim 6 of Reference
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Capy (US 4,592,711 A) teaches an apparatus for injection molding plastic parts (abstract, claim 1, figs. 1 and 4-7).
Ward (US 20170157824 A1) teaches a carousel-like continuous molding system including sensors (abstract, [0056, 0086, 0096], figs. 6-9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2991.
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.
/INJA SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights