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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN-115416222) in view of Tajima (WO-2021145139), using the attached original documents and English translations.
Regarding claim 1, Guo teaches:
A coupling device (Page 4; Fig. 1, #9) comprising:
a pipe including at least pipes (Pages 3-4; Figs. 1 and 3, #10 and 17) through which a material passes (Pages 3-4),
wherein the coupling device couples an output device that outputs the material to be recycled (Pages 1 and 5) and an injection molding machine that performs injection molding of the material with each other by connecting an upstream end part of the pipe to the output device and connecting a downstream end part of the pipe to the injection molding machine (Pages 4-5), and
the coupling device includes, on a downstream side of the pipe (Figs. 3, 5, and 6),
a removal dissolution unit that removes or dissolves a solid foreign matter mixed in the material (Page 4; Fig. 6, #13).
Guo does not explicitly teach:
molten resin passes through the pipes; and
the material is a molten resin.
However, Tajima, in a similar field of endeavor, a coupling device for an injection molding machine, teaches:
molten resin passes through the pipes (Pages 1-4); and
the material is a molten resin (Pages 1-4).
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 material of Guo to incorporate the teachings of Tajima and have it explicitly be a molten resin. The purpose, as stated by Tajima, being recycled material of PET by mechanical recycling may contain more impurities (Page 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 4, Guo in view of Tajima teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on. Guo further teaches:
wherein the removal dissolution unit is a filtration device that removes the solid foreign matter by filtering and separating the solid foreign matter (Pages 3-4; Fig. 6, #13).
Regarding claim 5, Guo in view of Tajima teaches the limitations of claim 4, which claim 5 depends on. Guo further teaches:
wherein the filtration device is a screen changer that enables detachment and replacement of a filter for filtering and separating the solid foreign matter (Page 4).
Regarding claim 13, Guo teaches:
A material supply system (Pages 1-2) comprising:
an output device that includes an output port of which a position is fixed and that outputs a material to be recycled from the output port (Pages 1 and 5);
an injection molding machine that includes an input port of which a position is movable and that molds a molding product using the material input through the input port (Pages 4-5); and
a coupling device (Page 4; Fig. 1, #9) that includes a pipe (Pages 3-4; Figs. 1 and 3, #10 and 17) through which the material passes (Pages 3-4), that couples the output device and the injection molding machine with each other by connecting an upstream end part of the pipe to the output port and connecting a downstream end part of the pipe to the input port (Pages 1 and 4-5), and that includes, on a downstream side of the pipe, a removal dissolution unit that removes or dissolves a solid foreign matter mixed in the material (Page 4; Figs. 3, 5, and 6, #13).
Guo does not explicitly teach:
molten resin passes through the pipes; and
the material is a molten resin.
However, Tajima, in a similar field of endeavor, a coupling device for an injection molding machine in a molten resin supply system, teaches:
molten resin passes through the pipes (Pages 1-4); and
the material is a molten resin (Pages 1-4).
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 material of Guo to incorporate the teachings of Tajima and have it explicitly be a molten resin. The purpose, as stated by Tajima, being recycled material of PET by mechanical recycling may contain more impurities (Page 2, paragraph 2).
Claims 2-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN-115416222) in view of Tajima (WO-2021145139), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rostamimouri (US-20230286196), using the attached original documents and English translations.
Regarding claim 2, Guo in view of Tajima teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on, but does not teach a coupling that displaces. However, Rostamimouri, in a similar field of endeavor, a coupling device for an injection molding machine, teaches:
a coupling that displaces, when at least a part of the injection molding machine moves relative to the output device, a part of the pipe to absorb the movement ([0090] and [0106]; Figs. 19-20, #360).
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 coupling device of Guo in view of Tajima to incorporate the teachings of Rostamimouri and include a coupling that displaces. The purpose, as stated by Rostamimouri, being that it permits them to slidably engage one another as described above but substantially prevents melt from leaking between them ([0092]).
Regarding claim 3, Guo in view of Tajima and Rostamimouri teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 3 depends on. Guo further teaches:
wherein the removal dissolution unit is disposed on a downstream side of the coupling in the pipe and on an upstream side of the injection molding machine (Page 4; Fig. 6, #13). While the coupling is not mentioned in Guo, which describes the removal dissolution unit, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the removal dissolution unit disposed downstream of the couple using rearrangement of parts in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, Guo in view of Tajima and Rostamimouri teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 10 depends on. Rostamimouri further teaches:
wherein the coupling is a sleeve-type telescopic pipe coupling ([0090] and [0106]; Figs. 19-20, #360).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN-115416222) in view of Tajima (WO-2021145139) and Rostamimouri (US-20230286196), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kim (KR-20090095053), using the attached original documents and English translations.
Regarding claim 11, Guo in view of Tajima and Rostamimouri teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 11 depends on, but does not teach the coupling being a metal hose. However, Kim, in a similar field of endeavor, a coupling device for an injection molding machine, teaches:
wherein the coupling is a flexible metal hose (Pages 1-2; Fig. 3, #62).
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 coupling of Guo in view of Tajima and Rostamimouri to incorporate the teachings of Kim and substitute the coupling for a metal hose. This combination would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using KSR Rationale (B): Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The coupling in Rostamimouri is a telescoping pipe coupling, and the coupling in Kim is a metal hose. Both are known coupling elements in the art and the substitution of one for the other would lead to predictable results and therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN-115416222) in view of Tajima (WO-2021145139) and Rostamimouri (US-20230286196), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zipse (US-20220314507), using the attached original documents and English translations.
Regarding claim 12, Guo in view of Tajima and Rostamimouri teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 12 depends on, but does not teach the coupling being a swivel joint. However, Zipse, in a similar field of endeavor, a coupling device for an injection molding machine, teaches:
wherein the coupling is a swivel joint ([0025]; Fig. 1, #17).
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 coupling of Guo in view of Tajima and Rostamimouri to incorporate the teachings of Zipse and substitute the coupling for a swivel joint. This combination would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using KSR Rationale (B): Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The coupling in Rostamimouri is a telescoping pipe coupling, and the coupling in Zipse is a swivel joint. Both are known coupling elements in the art and the substitution of one for the other would lead to predictable results and therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 6:
There is no proper teaching or combination in the art of the invention of claim 5 with the added limitations of: wherein the screen changer includes a main body, a connecting part, a sliding part, and a cylinder part, and the connecting part is provided with a first through-hole penetrating a surface on an upstream side and a surface on a downstream side in a coupling direction, which is a direction in which the coupling device couples the output device and the injection molding machine.
The closest prior art is Guo (CN-115416222), which teaches the filter being a screen changer, but does not teach the specific structural limitations listed above with regards to the screen changer filter. While one of ordinary skill in the art could attempt to use Tajima (WO-2021145139), Rostamimouri (US-20230286196), Kim (KR-20090095053), and Zipse (US-20220314507) to modify Guo, there is no proper combination of these references which teaches the invention of claim 5 further comprising the specific functional limitations of the screen changer filter as listed above. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 6 is allowable.
Claims 7-9 are dependent on claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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 L Hindenlang can be reached at 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748