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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/13/2026 in response to the restriction requirement filed 03/16/2026 have been reviewed and are found persuasive. Therefore the restriction requirement has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8, it is unclear what is meant by the “synchronization mechanism that synchronizes an operation” and there is little support for that this actually entails in the specifications as well. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 8 will be interpreted as requiring two different movement operations.
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 1-4, 7, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miwa (JP-11235741), using the attached original document and translation
Regarding claim 1, Miwa teaches:
An injection molding machine ([0016] – [0017]; Fig. 2) comprising:
an injection unit that injects an input molten resin ([0028]; Fig. 1, #39) into a mold ([0028]; Fig. 2, #3 and #7);
a mold clamping unit that supports the mold to perform mold clamping of the mold ([0013] – [0017]; Fig. 2, #23);
a stand installed on a floor surface to support the injection unit and the mold clamping unit ([0017] – [0018] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #45); and
a plurality of movement enabling units that enable the stand to move in a protrusion direction of an injection portion of the injection unit, independently of the injection unit and the floor surface ([0017] - [0018], [0022], [0025], [0036], [0039] – [0040] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #41 and #43).
Regarding claim 2, Miwa teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Miwa further teaches:
wherein when the stand that supports the mold clamping unit moves in the protrusion direction, independently of the injection unit and the floor surface, the injection unit and the mold are separated from each other or brought close to each other ([0017] - [0018], [0022], [0025], [0036], [0039] – [0040] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #17, #41, #43, and #45).
Regarding claim 3, Miwa teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on. Miwa further teaches:
wherein the stand is movable in the protrusion direction, independently of the injection unit, via a first movement enabling unit in the plurality of movement enabling units, and is movable in the protrusion direction, independently of the floor surface, via a second movement enabling unit in the plurality of movement enabling units ([0017] - [0018], [0022], [0025], [0036], [0039] – [0040] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #17, #41, and #45).
Regarding claim 4, Miwa teaches the limitations of claim 3, which claim 4 depends on. Miwa further teaches:
wherein the injection unit is supported by the stand via a sliding member serving as the first movement enabling unit ([0017] - [0018], [0022], [0025], [0036], [0039] – [0040] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #17 and #45).
Regarding claim 7, Miwa teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on. Miwa further teaches:
one or more drive units that move the stand in the protrusion direction ([0022] – [0025]; Fig. 2, #17).
Regarding claim 14, Miwa teaches:
An injection molding machine ([0016] – [0017]; Fig. 2) comprising:
an injection unit that injects an input molten resin into a mold ([0028]; Fig. 1, #39) into a mold ([0028]; Fig. 2, #3 and #7);
a mold clamping unit that supports the mold to perform mold clamping of the mold ([0013] – [0017]; Fig. 2, #23);
a stand that supports the injection unit and the mold clamping unit ([0017] – [0018] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #45); and
a movement enabling unit that enables the mold clamping unit to move in a protrusion direction of an injection portion of the injection unit, independently of the injection unit and the stand ([0017] - [0018], [0022], [0025], [0036], [0039] – [0040] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #43).
Regarding claim 15, Miwa teaches the limitations of claim 14, which claim 15 depends on. Miwa further teaches:
wherein when the mold clamping unit moves in the protrusion direction, independently of the injection unit and the stand, the injection unit and the mold are separated from each other or brought close to each other ([0017] - [0018], [0022], [0025], [0036], [0039] – [0040] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #43).
Regarding claim 16, Miwa teaches the limitations of claim 14, which claim 16 depends on. Miwa further teaches:
a drive unit that moves the mold clamping unit in the protrusion direction ([0017] - [0018], [0022], [0025], [0036], [0039] – [0040] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #17 and #43).
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.
Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa (JP-11235741) as applied to claims 4, 1, and independently, respectively, above, and further in view of Matsuura (DE-102022102425), using the attached original documents and translations.
Regarding claim 5, Miwa teaches the limitations of claim 4, which claim 5 depends on, but does not explicitly teach the sliding member comprising one or more linear guides, however, Matsuura, in a similar field of endeavor, an injection molding machine with sliding members, teaches:
wherein the sliding member includes one or more linear guides ([0015] – [0016]; Figs. 1-2, #19).
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 sliding member of Miwa to incorporate the teachings of Matsuura and include linear guide(s). The purpose, as stated by Matsuura, being so that the movable plate can slide sufficiently smoothly on the base ([0016]).
Regarding claim 6, Miwa in view of Matsuura teaches the limitations of claim 5, which claim 6 depends on. Miwa further teaches:
wherein the sliding member is a member that enables sliding between the injection unit and the stand, and is a member that enables sliding between the stand and the floor surface ([0039] – [0040] and [0047]; Fig. 2, #41).
Regarding claim 12, Miwa teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 12 depends on. Miwa further teaches:
the stand is slidable without causing the injection unit to slide ([0017] - [0018], [0022], [0025], [0036], [0039] – [0040] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #17, #41, #43, and #45).
Miwa does not teach:
wherein the injection unit is connected to an output port of an output unit via a connection pipe, a position of the output port is fixed.
However, Matsuura, in a similar field of endeavor, an injection molding machine, teaches:
wherein the injection unit is connected to an output port of an output unit via a connection pipe, a position of the output port is fixed ([0012]; Fig. 1, #6).
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 injection unit of Miwa to incorporate the teachings of Matsuura and connect it to an output port of an output unit. The purpose, as stated by Matsuura, being that the heating cylinder is equipped with a funnel, which supplies an injection material ([0012]).
Regarding claim 13, Miwa in view of Matsuura teaches the limitations of claim 12, which claim 13 depends on. Miwa further teaches:
wherein the stand is slidable in the protrusion direction, independently of the injection unit and the floor surface ([0017] - [0018], [0022], [0025], [0036], [0039] – [0040] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #17, #41, #43, and #45).
Regarding claim 18, Miwa teaches:
A molten resin supply system ([0016] – [0017]; Fig. 2) comprising:
an injection molding machine that molds a molding product by using the output molten resin, described in the combination below ([0017], and [0028] – [0029]),
wherein the injection molding machine includes
an injection unit including an input port of which a position with respect to the output port is fixed, and injecting the molten resin input to the input port into a mold ([0028]; Fig. 1, #39) into a mold ([0028]; Fig. 2, #3 and #7),
a mold clamping unit that supports the mold to perform mold clamping of the mold ([0013] – [0017]; Fig. 2, #23),
a stand installed on a floor surface to support the injection unit and the mold clamping unit ([0017] – [0018] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #45), and
a plurality of movement enabling units that enable the stand to move in a protrusion direction of an injection portion of the injection unit, independently of the injection unit and the floor surface ([0017] - [0018], [0022], [0025], [0036], [0039] – [0040] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #41 and #43).
Miwa does not teach:
an output unit including an output port for outputting a molten resin, and in which a position of the output port is fixed.
However, Matsuura, in a similar field of endeavor, a molten resin supply system, teaches:
an output unit including an output port for outputting a molten resin, and in which a position of the output port is fixed ([0012]; Fig. 1, #6).
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 injection unit of Miwa to incorporate the teachings of Matsuura and connect it to an output port of an output unit. The purpose, as stated by Matsuura, being that the heating cylinder is equipped with a funnel, which supplies an injection material ([0012]).
Regarding claim 19, Miwa teaches:
A molten resin supply system ([0016] – [0017]; Fig. 2) comprising:
an injection molding machine that molds a molding product by using the output molten resin described in the combination below ([0017], and [0028] – [0029]),
wherein the injection molding machine includes
an injection unit including an input port of which a position with respect to the output port is fixed, and injecting the molten resin input to the input port into a mold ([0028]; Fig. 1, #39) into a mold ([0028]; Fig. 2, #3 and #7),
a mold clamping unit that supports the mold to perform mold clamping of the mold ([0013] – [0017]; Fig. 2, #23),
a stand that supports the injection unit and the mold clamping unit ([0017] – [0018] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #45), and
a movement enabling unit that enables the mold clamping unit to move in a protrusion direction of an injection portion of the injection unit, independently of the injection unit and the stand ([0017] - [0018], [0022], [0025], [0036], [0039] – [0040] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #43).
Miwa does not teach:
an output unit including an output port for outputting a molten resin, and in which a position of the output port is fixed.
However, Matsuura, in a similar field of endeavor, a molten resin supply system, teaches:
an output unit including an output port for outputting a molten resin, and in which a position of the output port is fixed ([0012]; Fig. 1, #6).
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 injection unit of Miwa to incorporate the teachings of Matsuura and connect it to an output port of an output unit. The purpose, as stated by Matsuura, being that the heating cylinder is equipped with a funnel, which supplies an injection material ([0012]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa (JP-11235741) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Senga (US-20210129397), using the attached original document and translation.
Regarding claim 8, Miwa teaches the limitations of claim 7, which claim 8 depends on. Miwa further teaches:
an operation in which the stand moves in the protrusion direction, independently of the floor surface ([0017] - [0018], [0022], [0025], [0036], [0039] – [0040] and [0047] – [0048]; Fig. 2, #17, #41 and #45).
Miwa does not teach:
a synchronization mechanism that synchronizes an operation in which the injection unit moves in the protrusion direction.
However, Senga, in a similar field of endeavor, an injection molding machine, teaches:
a synchronization mechanism that synchronizes an operation in which the injection unit moves in the protrusion direction ([0023] – [0024]; Fig. 1, #14 and #20), independently of the stand ([0023]; Fig. 1, #16).
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 injection unit of Miwa to incorporate the teachings of Senga and have it move in a protrusion direction independently of the stand. The purpose, as stated by Senga, being that it causes the injection unit to move toward and away from the mold clamping unit ([0024]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa (JP-11235741) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Terada (US-20060097421), using the attached original document and translation.
Regarding claim 9, Miwa teaches the limitations of claim 7, which claim 9 depends on, but does not teach the drive unit being a motor. However, Terada, in a similar field of endeavor, an injection molding machine, teaches:
wherein the drive unit is a motor ([0041]; Fig. 1, #13).
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 drive unit of Miwa to incorporate the teachings of Terada and make it a motor. The purpose, as stated by Terada, being that the body drive mechanism is, for example, an actuator using an electric motor such as a servomotor as a drive source ([0041]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa (JP-11235741) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Son Angelo (U.S. Patent No. 3327354), using the attached original document and translation.
Regarding claim 10, Miwa teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 10 depends on, but does not teach a locking member for the stand. However, Son Angelo, in a similar field of endeavor, an injection molding machine, teaches:
a first locking member that locks a movement of the stand in the protrusion direction (Col. 5-6; Fig. 7, #14 and #200).
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 stand of Miwa to incorporate the teachings of Son Angelo and include a locking member. The purpose, as stated by Son Angelo, being the locking mechanism includes a latch mounted on the base frame for linear movement along a radius of the table (Col. 5, lines 62-64).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa (JP-11235741) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oshiro (U.S. Patent No. 5916604), using the attached original document and translation.
Regarding claim 11, Miwa teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 11 depends on, but does not teach a locking member for the injection unit. However, Oshiro, in a similar field of endeavor, an injection molding machine, teaches:
a second locking member that locks a movement of the injection unit in the protrusion direction (Col. 5; Fig. 1, #3, #14, and #30).
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 injection unit of Miwa to incorporate the teachings of Oshiro and include a locking member. The purpose, as stated by Oshiro, being that as the lock plate is driven by the lock cylinder into an advanced position relative to the guide bar, the engagement recess engages with the engagement groove, thereby locking an axial sliding of the guide bar (Col. 5, lines 35-39).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa (JP-11235741) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Pacios (US-20200139602), using the attached original document and translation.
Regarding claim 17, Miwa teaches the limitations of claim 14, which claim 17 depends on, but does not teach a locking member for the clamping unit. However, Pacios, in a similar field of endeavor, an injection molding machine, teaches:
a locking member that locks a movement of the mold clamping unit in the protrusion direction ([0016], [0021], and [0058]; Fig. 2, #11 and #12).
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 clamping unit of Miwa to incorporate the teachings of Pacios and include a locking member. The purpose, as stated by Pacios, being to not allow for the mobile platens to be moved during the application of the clamping force and in this way making the clamping force effective between the molding faces ([0021]).
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
Prosecution Insights