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 .
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.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, limitations following preferably will be treated as exemplary and not part of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner side" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the pressure die casting tool" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the extraction of a gas present in the casting chamber" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “The method according to claim 14” is indefinite as claim 14 is directed to the vacuum-assisted pressure die casting system, and not the method. For examination purposes, claim 16 will be treated as being dependent from claim 15, which is directed to a method for operating a vacuum-assisted pressure die casting system.
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.
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(s) 1-7, 9-12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa (US 2021/0308749, cited in IDS filed 9/11/24) in view of Ishibashi (CN 111989176 A, hereinafter Ishibashi’176).
Regarding claim 1, Morikawa teaches a casting device for a vacuum-assisted pressure die casting system (fig 1), the casting device comprising a casting chamber (fig 1, sleeve 3), which has a wall surface (fig 1, see surface of wall of sleeve 3), and a plunger (fig 1, plunger tip 1) configured to move longitudinally in the casting chamber (see figures, paragraph [0043], die casting apparatus pushes the tip) and completing the casting chamber at a first end (fig 1), the casting chamber comprising a filling hole (fig 1, supply port 2), the casting chamber comprising a gate (fig 1, see opposite end leading to a runner 7) at a second end opposite the first end (fig 1), the gate being preferably at an end face (see 112(b) rejection above regarding the term “preferably”), wherein at least one suction groove (fig 1, vacuum groove 6) is disposed in the inner side of the wall surface at least in sections (fig 1, see groove 6 at inner side of wall of sleeve 3), at least one suction hole (fig 1, suction port 5) being disposed in the suction groove (fig 1, suction port 5 is connected to suction groove 6).
Morikawa fails to teach the suction groove is disposed tangentially.
Ishibashi’176 teaches a die-casting machine (paragraph [0021]) including a sleeve. Ishibashi’176 teaches a first suction through-hole 15 and a second suction through-hole 14 (fig 4a) formed in the upper portion of the sleeve (paragraph [0051]). The opening area of the through portion 15 at first portion C1 is larger than the opening area of the through portion 14 at the second portion C2 (paragraph [0110], fig 5). Ishibashi’176 teaches that the front through-hole portion 15 can have a shape of an oval that is longer in the circumferential direction D3 of the sleeve than the rear through-hole portion 14 shown in figure 5 (paragraph [0116]), or alternatively, may be an oval shape that is longer in the axial direction D1 (paragraph [0117]), and that the front and rear through-holes can be constituted by any number of holes, one or more (paragraph [0119]). When the front space is sucked through the front through-hole and the inside of suction recess is sucked through the rear through-hole, the front space can be at a pressure lower than the suction recess (paragraph [0123]), which can suppress the flow of external gas into the front space and thereby prevent turbulence of the molten metal and avoid blockage of the through-holes (paragraph [0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Morikawa such that the suction groove is disposed tangentially (circumferentially), as Ishibashi’176 teaches an orientation of circumferential or axial for the suction portions are alternatives for producing a larger opening area compared to a rear suction port (paragraph [0116-0117]). The use of a larger suction area in the front compared to a smaller suction area in the rear can create a pressure difference between a front space and a suction recess, which would prevent turbulence and avoid blockages (Ishibashi’176, paragraph [0124]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches wherein the suction groove is disposed behind the filling hole (Morikawa, fig 1, groove is shown to the right of supply port 2).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein an underpressure system or a vacuum pump is connected to the suction hole (Morikawa, fig 1, vacuum tank 14A, connected to suction port 5).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the suction groove extends in part of the wall surface (note combination, Morikawa, fig 1, shows the groove is in the wall of the sleeve 3).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches wherein the suction groove flattens out at the ends (see combination where Ishibashi’176 teaches oval in the circumferential direction, note Morikawa, groove 6, see width in figure 5 where the ends reduce in thickness).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches wherein the filling hole is disposed in the wall surface of the casting chamber in a third of the wall surface adjacent to the first end (Morikawa, filling hole 2 is in the first third to the left of the figure).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches wherein the suction groove is disposed in a first third of a section of the wall surface, the section extending from a rear edge of the fitting hole to the second end of the casting chamber (Morikawa, fig 1, groove 6 is near the supply port and extends towards the end with the runner).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches wherein the suction groove has a rectangular cross section (Ishibashi’176 teaches the shape is not limited to circular or oval and may be rectangular in consideration of connection with the suction pipe, paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches wherein the suction groove or the suction hole is disposed at a top of the casting chamber (Morikawa, fig 1, note groove is at the top portion of the sleeve).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches wherein the casting device comprises two to ten suction grooves, the suction grooves being disposed one behind the other in the longitudinal direction (Ishibashi’176 teaches any number of holes (paragraph [0119]) including an example of a single rear hole 14 and two front holes (paragraph [0120])).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches wherein the suction grooves are disposed at a distance from each other, the distance between adjacent suction grooves being smaller than a length of the plunger (Ishibashi’176, fig 6a-6c, paragraph [0110-0111], note that the distance has to be smaller than a length in Ishibashi’176 so that the front through-hole is open to the front space while the rear through-hole is open to a suction recess of the plunger).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches a vacuum-assisted pressure die casting system comprising at least one casting device according to claim 1 (see combination, Morikawa, figure 1), a drive for driving the plunger (fig 1, tip 1, paragraph [0030], tip is pushed, thereby suggesting a drive, note the use of a cylinder that drives the plunger in Ishibashi’176, paragraph [0048]), at least one pressure die casting tool (Morikawa, fig 1, mold 13), and at least one underpressure system or vacuum pump (Morikawa, fig 1, vacuum tank 14A).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches a method for operating a vacuum-assisted pressure die casting system, the method comprising the following steps: a) providing a casting device according to claim 1 (see combination, Morikawa, figure 1); and b) introducing a melt through the filling hole (Morikawa, paragraph [0048], molten metal is poured into sleeve); and c) moving the plunger from the first end to the second end of the casting chamber (paragraph [0054] tip is pushed at a relatively low speed, paragraph [0059] tip is pushed at a relatively high speed), extracting a gas flowing along the sides of the plunger (paragraph [0052], gas inside sleeve is removed), evacuating a gas present in the pressure die casting tool (paragraph [0053], gas removed from groove 11 side), and introducing the melt into the pressure die casting tool (paragraph [0060], when the tip is pushed all the way, the molten metal inside the sleeve is sent into the vacuumed cavity).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches wherein the extraction of a gas present in the casting chamber, a gas flowing into the casting chamber or the gas flowing along the sides of the plunger or the evacuation of the gas present in the pressure die casting tool takes place in step b) (Morikawa, paragraph [0048] teaches pouring molten metal into the sleeve, paragraph [0052] teaches actuating the suction solenoid, and paragraph [0054] teaches then the tip is pushed at a relatively low speed, and paragraph [0055] teaches pushing to position B, note that as the vacuum is actuated prior to step c) of moving to the second end, the extraction is construed as taking place in step b)).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa as modified by Ishibashi’176 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Linden Jr et al (US 5,195,572).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the suction groove at least partially extends below the filling hole (Ishibashi’176, paragraph [0116], shape of an oval that is longer in the circumferential direction, paragraph [0122], may be arranged along the circumferential direction, e.g., a predetermined angular range on both sides of the 12 o’clock position (the filling hole will be at the 12 o’clock position))
but is quiet to wherein the diameter of the filling hole increases from an inner side to an outer side of the wall surface.
Linden Jr et al teaches a shot sleeve (abstract) having a pour hole shaped as a conical passage with its widest diameter intersecting the top outer surface and its taper into the interior axial passage, which is also known and common in the prior art (figs 1-2, col 4 lines 15-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a conical passage shaped pour hole for the pour hole of the combination, as the tapered shape is well known and common in the prior art. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A). Note that a tapered pouring hole will yield the predictable result of reducing turbulence during pouring.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa as modified by Ishibashi’176 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ishibashi (JP 2020-006435 A, hereinafter Ishibashi’435).
Regarding claim 13, the combination is quiet to wherein the distance is equal to the length of the plunger minus the widths of the adjacent suction grooves.
Ishibashi’435 teaches in figure 12E a distance between suction holes being equal to a length of the plunger minus the widths of the adjacent suction grooves. Note that in figure 12E (shown below), the plunger length (Lp1 + Lp0 + Lp3) minus the widths of the adjacent suction grooves (2 x Ls2) would result in the distance between the suction holes, which is Ls3. Note that this configuration closes the suction port 14 by the second large diameter portion 202, so the space 88 behind the second large diameter portion 202 and the inside portion of the suction recess 120 are not connected via the suction portion 14 (paragraph [0183]). Therefore, the outside air is prevented from flowing into the inside of the suction recess 120 from behind the second large diameter portion 202 (paragraph [0183]). This require is necessary to suppress the inflow of outside air into the front space and ensure the sleeve vacuum suction (paragraph [0184]).
PNG
media_image1.png
316
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the distance between the adjacent suction grooves to be equal to the length of the plunger minus the widths of the adjacent suction grooves, as Ishibashi’435 teaches that the arrangement in figure 12E prevents outside air flowing in from behind, thereby ensuring the vacuum suction in the suction recess and front space (paragraph [0183-0184]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735