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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-24, drawn to an insert changeover system, classified in B29C33/30.
ll. Claims 25-29, drawn to a method of releasably securing the insert of the insert changeover system, classified in B29C45/822.
Inventions ll and l are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In the instant case, the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process, i.e., the mold body and the insert of Invention l can be mated by snap-fit joints between the pneumatic pull stock clamp and the insert guide pin.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
the invention require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with John Dresch (Reg. No. 46,672) on 03/03/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention l, claims 1-24. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 25-29 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 1-11 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by DeSmith et al. (US 2011/0115117).
With respect to claim 1, DeSmith teaches an insert changeover system for an injection mold (“an interchangeable mold tooling assembly 22”, Pa [0031]) comprising:
a mold body (“a movable tooling half 28”, Pa [0032]) having at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp (“locking cylinders 23B”, Pa [0048]); and
an insert (“a movable mold block 30”, Pa [0032]) having at least one insert guide pin (“air actuated knob 23A”, Pa [0048]),
wherein the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp is configured to releasably secure a portion of the at least one insert guide pin when the insert is mounted on the mold body (“A series of air actuated knob 23A and locking cylinders 23B serve as fasteners 44 to fasten the movable tooling half 28 of the tooling assembly 22 to the movable core block 30.”, Pa [0048]; “By design, the pneumatically operated locking cylinder 23B is normally fully engaged and locked by means of an internal spring mechanism and is only able to release the captured knob 23A when pneumatic pressure is applied to the cylinder 23B to counteract the internal spring mechanism thereby permitting the jaws of the locking cylinder 23B to open and release the mating knob 23A.”, Pa [0057]).
With respect to claim 2, DeSmith as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one insert guide pin includes a body and a pull stock bolt at a free end of the body (See the annotated Fig. 8 below), and wherein the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp is configured to releasably secure the pull stock bolt to selectively lock and unlock a position of the pull stock bolt with respect to the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp (“By design, the pneumatically operated locking cylinder 23B is normally fully engaged and locked by means of an internal spring mechanism and is only able to release the captured knob 23A when pneumatic pressure is applied to the cylinder 23B to counteract the internal spring mechanism thereby permitting the jaws of the locking cylinder 23B to open and release the mating knob 23A.”, Pa [0057] and Figs. 8, 10, 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
879
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the annotated Fig. 8
With respect to claim 3, DeSmith as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that a portion of the at least one insert guide pin is configured to engage the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp when the insert is mounted on the mold body, and wherein the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp is configured to secure the portion of the at least one insert guide pin in a fixed position such that the insert is secured to the mold body (“By design, the pneumatically operated locking cylinder 23B is normally fully engaged and locked by means of an internal spring mechanism”, Pa [0057] and Figs. 10, 11).
With respect to claim 4, DeSmith as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that a part of the insert abuts a face of the mold body when the insert is mounted on the mold body (Figs. 10, 11), wherein the mold body includes a tunnel extending from the face to the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp, and wherein at least a portion of the at least one insert guide pin extends from the insert through the tunnel to the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp when the insert is mounted on the mold body (Fig. 10).
With respect to claim 5, DeSmith as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp is configured to secure a portion of the at least one insert guide pin in a locked state such that the insert is secured to the mold body (“By design, the pneumatically operated locking cylinder 23B is normally fully engaged and locked by means of an internal spring mechanism”, Pa [0057]; “A series of air actuated knob 23A and locking cylinders 23B serve as fasteners 44 to fasten the movable tooling half 28 of the tooling assembly 22 to the movable core block 30.”, Pa [0048]).
With respect to claim 6, DeSmith as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp is configured to selectively lock and unlock a portion of the at least one insert guide pin within a body of the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp (“By design, the pneumatically operated locking cylinder 23B is normally fully engaged and locked by means of an internal spring mechanism and is only able to release the captured knob 23A when pneumatic pressure is applied to the cylinder 23B to counteract the internal spring mechanism thereby permitting the jaws of the locking cylinder 23B to open and release the mating knob 23A.”, Pa [0057]).
With respect to claim 7, DeSmith as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that a body of the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp includes a release air port (“All of the mating knob 23A and locking cylinder 23B fastening mechanisms for attaching the movable tooling half 28 and the cavity mold block 30 to each other can be actuated by a series of pneumatic lines which are plumbed in parallel and powered from a centrally located air supply that is located on the stationary tooling half 24.”, Pa [0056]; “pneumatic pressure is applied to the cylinder 23B to counteract the internal spring mechanism”, Pa [0057]).
With respect to claim 8, since DeSmith as applied to claim 7 above further teaches that the pneumatically operated locking cylinder 23B is normally fully engaged and locked by means of an internal spring mechanism and is only able to release the captured knob 23A when pneumatic pressure is applied to the cylinder 23B to counteract the internal spring mechanism thereby permitting the jaws of the locking cylinder 23B to open and release the mating knob 23A (Pa [0057]), it is noted that the limitation “when an air pressure is applied to the release air port, the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp is configured to receive a portion of the at least one insert guide pin within the body of the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp” is an intended use since the system of DeSmith is capable of performing the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 9, DeSmith as applied to claim 8 above further teaches that when the air pressure is not applied to the release air port, the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp locks the portion of the at least one insert guide pin within the body of the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp (“By design, the pneumatically operated locking cylinder 23B is normally fully engaged and locked by means of an internal spring mechanism and is only able to release the captured knob 23A when pneumatic pressure is applied to the cylinder 23B to counteract the internal spring mechanism thereby permitting the jaws of the locking cylinder 23B to open and release the mating knob 23A”, Pa [0057]).
With respect to claim 10, DeSmith as applied to claim 9 above further teaches that the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp includes a spring lock (“an internal spring mechanism”) that locks the portion of the at least one insert guide pin within the body of the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp when the air pressure is not applied to the release air port (“By design, the pneumatically operated locking cylinder 23B is normally fully engaged and locked by means of an internal spring mechanism and is only able to release the captured knob 23A when pneumatic pressure is applied to the cylinder 23B to counteract the internal spring mechanism thereby permitting the jaws of the locking cylinder 23B to open and release the mating knob 23A”, Pa [0057]).
With respect to claim 11, DeSmith as applied to claim 9 above further teaches that when the air pressure is re-applied to the release air port, the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp unlocks the portion of the at least one insert guide pin with respect to the body of the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp (“By design, the pneumatically operated locking cylinder 23B is normally fully engaged and locked by means of an internal spring mechanism and is only able to release the captured knob 23A when pneumatic pressure is applied to the cylinder 23B to counteract the internal spring mechanism thereby permitting the jaws of the locking cylinder 23B to open and release the mating knob 23A”, Pa [0057]).
With respect to claim 16, DeSmith as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the mold body includes a mold cavity, and wherein the insert is disposed in the mold cavity (“The core block 30 is mounted directly to the mounting plate 74”, Pa [0045]).
With respect to claim 17, DeSmith as applied to claim 16 above further teaches that a part of the insert is adjacent to a face of the cavity when the insert is disposed in the mold cavity (“The core block 30 is mounted directly to the mounting plate 74”, Pa [0045]), wherein the mold body includes a tunnel extending from an opening in the face of the mold cavity to the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp, and wherein at least a portion of the at least one insert guide pin extends from the insert into the opening and through the tunnel to the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp when the insert is disposed in the mold cavity (Fig. 10).
With respect to claim 18, DeSmith as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the mold body (“The movable tooling half 28”) includes a plurality of module plates (“a first steel plate 70”, “a series of steel intermediate support blocks 72” and “a block mounting plate 74”, Pa [0045]), and wherein the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp is accommodated within at least one of the plurality of module plates (“The cylinder locks 23B are typically installed into a steel component of the mold 22 such as the base plate 74”, Pa [0059]).
With respect to claim 19, DeSmith as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp includes a plurality of pneumatic pull stock clamps, and wherein the at least one insert guide pin includes a plurality of insert guide pins (Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 20, DeSmith as applied to claim 19 above further teaches that the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp includes four pneumatic pull stock clamps, and wherein the at least one insert guide pin includes four insert guide pins, wherein each of the four pneumatic pull stock clamps and the four insert guide pins are disposed adjacent a corner of a cavity of the mold body (Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 21, DeSmith as applied to claim 19 above further teaches that the mold body (“The movable tooling half 28”) includes a plurality of module plates (“a first steel plate 70”, “a series of steel intermediate support blocks 72” and “a block mounting plate 74”, Pa [0045]) and at least one of the plurality of module plates (“a block mounting plate 74”) includes a plurality of receptacles, and wherein each of the plurality of pneumatic pull stock clamps is disposed in a receptacle of the plurality of receptacles (“The cylinder locks 23B are typically installed into a steel component of the mold 22 such as the base plate 74”, Pa [0059] and Fig. 10).
With respect to claim 22, DeSmith as applied to claim 21 above further teaches that at least one of the plurality of module plates includes a channel connecting at least one of the plurality of receptacles to an exterior of the plurality of module plates (Fig. 10).
With respect to claim 23, DeSmith as applied to claim 8 above further teaches an air line coupled to the release air port of the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp and configured to supply air pressure to the release air port (“All of the mating knob 23A and locking cylinder 23B fastening mechanisms for attaching the movable tooling half 28 and the cavity mold block 30 to each other can be actuated by a series of pneumatic lines which are plumbed in parallel and powered from a centrally located air supply that is located on the stationary tooling half 24.”, Pa [0056]).
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.
Claims 12-15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over DeSmith et al. (US 2011/0115117) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of IMAO Corp. (“Pneumatic pin holding clamp”, https://www.imao.com/catalog/en/categoryviews/?categorycode=&category=$502723&page=1#cad_data, and the catalog, 2022).
With respect to claim 12, DeSmith as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that a body of the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp includes a lock air port and a release air port.
IMAO Corp. relates to pneumatic pin holding clamp which is double acting pull down clamp, and it includes clamping port and unclamping port such that the piston goes up by air supply from clamping port and the balls move toward the center to pull down the clamping pin, the wedge clamping prevents the plate from lifting up and inner spring keeps clamping without air supply (Product catalog, pg 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify DeSmith with the teachings of IMAO Corp. and substitute the double acting pull down clamp for the locking cylinder 23B in order to releasably fasten the movable tooling half 28 to the movable core block 30, since it has been held that where the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)).
With respect to claim 13, since IMAO Corp. as applied in the combination regarding claim 12 above teaches that when the air is supplied to the unclamping port, the pneumatic pin holding clamp releases the claiming pin (Product catalog, “Feature”, pg 2), it is noted that the limitation “when an air pressure is applied to the release air port, the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp is configured to receive a portion of the at least one insert guide pin within the body of the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp” is an intended use since the system of IMAO Corp. is capable of performing the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 14, IMAO Corp. as applied in the combination regarding claim 13 above teaches that when an air pressure is applied to the lock air port, the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp locks the portion of the at least one insert guide pin within the body of the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp (“The piston goes up by air supply from clamping port and the balls move toward the center to pull down the clamping pin.”, Product catalog, “Feature”, pg 2).
With respect to claim 15, IMAO Corp. as applied in the combination regarding claim 14 above teaches that when the air pressure is re-applied to the release air port, the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp unlocks the portion of the at least one insert guide pin with respect to the body of the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp (Product catalog, “Feature”, pg 2).
With respect to claim 24, IMAO Corp. as applied in the combination regarding claim 8 above teaches comprising: a first air line coupled to the release air port (“unclamping port”) of the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp and configured to supply air pressure to the release air port; and a second air line coupled to the lock air port (“clamping port”) of the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp and configured to supply air pressure to the lock air port (“product video”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742