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
Affirmation of the election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-24, has been made on 07/17/2026.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 07/17/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 03/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 17 have been amended. Claim 16 has been canceled. New claim 30 has been added. Claims 25-29 maintain withdrawn. Claims 1-15 and 17-30 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 07/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 17, 18, 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goria (EP 2821199A1).
With respect to claim 1, Goria teaches an insert changeover system for a mold comprising:
a mold body (“the mould 1”) having a mold cavity configured to form an molded part (“the mould 1 comprises a first body 2 and a second body 3 which can be coupled to each other to form a moulding cavity 4 inside the mould itself.”, Pa [0012]), and at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp (“locking means 10 are arranged inside indentation 9”, Pa [0016]; “an indentation 9 formed in the second body 3”, Pa [0015]; “the piston 11 and the cylinder 15 form a hydraulic or pneumatic unit suitable for moving the piston 11 at least from the locking position to the unlocking position.”, Pa [0032]); and
an insert having at least one insert guide pin (“number 5a indicates an insert located inside the moulding cavity 4. The conformation of the insert is such as to modify the volume and/or the shape of the moulding cavity. In particular, for each mould 1, two or more inserts 5a, 5b can be provided, having different shapes and/or dimensions.”, Pa [0013]; “each insert comprises a stem 6 which extends along a longitudinal direction 7.”, Pa [0014]),
wherein the insert is disposed in the mold cavity of the mold body and forms a part of a surface of the mold cavity (“number 5a indicates an insert located inside the moulding cavity 4. The conformation of the insert is such as to modify the volume and/or the shape of the moulding cavity.”, Pa [0013]), and
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 (“Number 10 indicates locking means operating in reversible manner on the stem 6 to reversibly lock it in the cavity 8 into which it is fitted.”, Pa [0016]).
It is noted the limitation “for an injection mold” in line 1 is an intended use since the apparatus of Goria is capable of being used for an injection mold. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). 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 2, Goria as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one insert guide pin (“a stem 6”) includes a body (the part above “undercut 13”) and a pull stock bolt (the part below “undercut 13”) at a free end of the body, 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 (“Number 12 indicates at least one locking element movable through the action of piston 11 according to a trajectory incident to the longitudinal direction 7 between an interference position, corresponding to the locking position of piston 11 (figure 3a) and a release position, corresponding to the unlocking position of piston 11 (figure 3b) and vice versa.”, Pa [0017]; “the locking element 12 located in the interference position should interfere with this undercut 13.”, Pa [0019]).
With respect to claim 3, Goria 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 (“Preferably the stem 6 is provided with at least one undercut 13. In this case it is preferable that the locking element 12 located in the interference position should interfere with this undercut 13.”, Pa [0019]).
With respect to claim 4, Goria 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 (“number 5a indicates an insert located inside the moulding cavity 4. The conformation of the insert is such as to modify the volume and/or the shape of the moulding cavity.”, Pa [0013]), wherein the mold body includes a tunnel (“a cavity 8”) 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 (“the stem 6 is inserted along the longitudinal direction 7 in a cavity 8 … Preferably cavity 8 extends inside the second body 3 and terminates on the opposite side from the moulding cavity 4. Preferably cavity 8 terminates adjacent to an indentation 9 formed in the second body 3.”, Pa [0015]; “locking means 10 are arranged inside indentation 9”, Pa [0016]).
With respect to claim 5, Goria 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 (“Number 12 indicates at least one locking element movable through the action of piston 11 according to a trajectory incident to the longitudinal direction 7 between an interference position, corresponding to the locking position of piston 11 (figure 3a)”, Pa [0017]; “Preferably the stem 6 is provided with at least one undercut 13. In this case it is preferable that the locking element 12 located in the interference position should interfere with this undercut 13.”, Pa [0019]).
With respect to claim 6, Goria 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 (“Number 12 indicates at least one locking element movable through the action of piston 11 according to a trajectory incident to the longitudinal direction 7 between an interference position, corresponding to the locking position of piston 11 (figure 3a) and a release position, corresponding to the unlocking position of piston 11 (figure 3b) and vice versa.”, Pa [0017]; “the locking element 12 located in the interference position should interfere with this undercut 13.”, Pa [0019]).
With respect to claim 7, Goria as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that chamber 16 is put into communication with a source of fluid or liquid under pressure to generate a thrust on piston 11 such as to move it from the locking position to the unlocking position (Pa [0033]), thus one would appreciate that Goria implies that a body of the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp includes a release air port to connect the source of fluid therebetween.
With respect to claim 8, Goria as applied to claim 7 above further teaches that 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 (“To unlock the insert, a pneumatic or hydraulic plant connected to the chamber 16 is activated to move the piston 11 from the locking position to the unlocking position.”, Pa [0037]; “The new insert is inserted into the cavity 8 along the longitudinal direction 7 until it fits into the guide structure 14.”, Pa [0039]).
With respect to claim 9, Goria 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 (“The pneumatic or hydraulic plant connected to the chamber 16 is deactivated and the piston returns to the locking position as a result of the force exerted by the helical springs. The movement of the conical ring along the longitudinal direction 7 thrusts the balls against the stem along a trajectory perpendicular to the longitudinal direction 7, interfering in particular with the undercut 13.”, Pa [0039]).
With respect to claim 10, Goria as applied to claim 9 above further teaches that the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp includes a spring lock (“helical springs”) 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 (“The pneumatic or hydraulic plant connected to the chamber 16 is deactivated and the piston returns to the locking position as a result of the force exerted by the helical springs. The movement of the conical ring along the longitudinal direction 7 thrusts the balls against the stem along a trajectory perpendicular to the longitudinal direction 7, interfering in particular with the undercut 13.”, Pa [0039]).
With respect to claim 11, Goria 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 (“To unlock the insert, a pneumatic or hydraulic plant connected to the chamber 16 is activated to move the piston 11 from the locking position to the unlocking position. Following the movement of the piston, the conical ring 20 no longer interacts with the balls, thus cancelling the locking force exerted on the stem by the balls themselves, and allowing the insert to slide out.”, Pa [0037]-[0038]).
With respect to claim 17, Goria as applied to claim 1 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 (“number 5a indicates an insert located inside the moulding cavity 4. The conformation of the insert is such as to modify the volume and/or the shape of the moulding cavity.”, Pa [0013]), wherein the mold body includes a tunnel (“a cavity 8”) 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 (“the stem 6 is inserted along the longitudinal direction 7 in a cavity 8 … Preferably cavity 8 extends inside the second body 3 and terminates on the opposite side from the moulding cavity 4. Preferably cavity 8 terminates adjacent to an indentation 9 formed in the second body 3.”, Pa [0015]; “locking means 10 are arranged inside indentation 9”, Pa [0016]).
With respect to claim 18, Goria as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the mold body includes a plurality of module plates (“the mould 1 comprises a first body 2 and a second body 3”, Pa [0012]), and wherein the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp is accommodated within at least one of the plurality of module plates (“locking means 10 are arranged inside indentation 9”, Pa [0016]; “an indentation 9 formed in the second body 3”, Pa [0015]).
With respect to claim 23, Goria as applied to claim 8 above further implies an air line coupled to the release air port of the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp to connect the source of fluid therebetween so as to supply air pressure to the release air port.
With respect to claim 30, Goria as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the mold body includes a tunnel (“a cavity 8”) extending from an opening in a face of the mold cavity to the at least one pneumatic pull stock clamp through which the at least one insert guide pin extends when the insert is disposed in the mold cavity (“the stem 6 is inserted along the longitudinal direction 7 in a cavity 8 … Preferably cavity 8 extends inside the second body 3 and terminates on the opposite side from the moulding cavity 4. Preferably cavity 8 terminates adjacent to an indentation 9 formed in the second body 3.”, Pa [0015]; “locking means 10 are arranged inside indentation 9”, Pa [0016]).
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 Goria (EP 2821199A1) 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-of record).
With respect to claim 12, Goria as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that chamber 16 is put into communication with a source of fluid or liquid under pressure to generate a thrust on piston 11 such as to move it from the locking position to the unlocking position (Pa [0033]), but 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 Goria with the teachings of IMAO Corp. and substitute the double acting pull down clamp for the locking means in order to reversibly lock the stem 6 in the cavity 8 into which it is fitted, 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”).
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Goria (EP 2821199A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 19, Goria as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach 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. One would have found it obvious to duplicate the stem 6 and locking means 10 in order to support and reversibly lock the insert in the mold body, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With respect to claim 20, one would have found it obvious to duplicate the stem 6 and locking means 10 and arrange the multiple sets of stems 6 and locking means 10 in order to support and reversibly lock the insert in the mold body.
With respect to claim 21, Goria as applied to claim 19 above further teaches that the mold body includes a plurality of module plates (“the mould 1 comprises a first body 2 and a second body 3”, Pa [0012]) and at least one of the plurality of module plates (“the second body 3”) 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 (“an indentation 9 formed in the second body 3”, Pa [0015]; “locking means 10 are arranged inside indentation 9”, Pa [0016]).
With respect to claim 22, Goria as applied to claim 21 above further teaches that at least one of the plurality of module plates includes a channel (“a cavity 8”) connecting at least one of the plurality of receptacles to an exterior of the plurality of module plates (“cavity 8 terminates adjacent to an indentation 9 formed in the second body 3.”, Pa [0015]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights