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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant filed a response; amend claim 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 16; and cancelled 3 and 18 on 06/25/2026.
The 112(b) rejections previously presented are withdrawn in view of amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Amended claim 16 now requires the carrier is movable and the injection station is stationary. The rejection below addresses the amendments.
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 1, 2, and 4-15 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.
Claim 1 recites “providing an injection station including a platform, an injector disposed over the platform, and a plunger under the molding device and the platform;
conveying a molding device to the injection station…”.
There appears to be a lack of antecedent basis for the first instance of “the molding device” and lack of clarity if the same molding device is conveyed. For examination purposes, the limitations will be interpreted as the following: “providing an injection station including a platform, an injector disposed over the platform, and a plunger under a molding device and the platform; conveying the molding device to the injection station…”.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miwa (JP4954726, machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 16, Miwa teaches an injection molding method, comprising: providing a carrier, wherein a first molding device and a second molding device are held by the carrier (Figures 3, 4, 7 and 8, item 7, [0022], [0026]-[0027]).;
providing an injection station including a platform and an injector disposed over the platform; providing a plunger disposed under the platform,
wherein the plunger includes a base and a rod extendable from and retractable toward the base (Figure 1 and 4);
moving the first molding device into the injection station and disposing the first molding device between the injector and the platform (Figure 4, step a and [0026]-[0027]);
providing a plunging force to the first molding device by extending the rod to contact the first molding device (Figure 4, step b and [0026]-[0028]);
injecting a molding material from the injector into the first molding device; moving the first molding device away from the injection station (Figure 4, step d and [0028]); and
moving the second molding device into the injection station and disposing the second molding device between the injector and the platform (Figure 5-8 and [0028]-[0029]).
wherein the carrier is movable (Figure 4 and 5) and the injection station is stationary (Figure 3), the platform is fixedly disposed under the carrier (Figure 1 and 3), and the injector is fixedly over the carrier (Figure 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 17, Miwa teaches the process as applied to claim 16, further comprising:
providing the plunging force to the second molding device by extending the rod to contact the second molding device (Figure 5 and [0027]-[0029]);
injecting the molding material from the injector into the second molding device; moving the second molding device away from the injection station (Figure 5 and [0027]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 20, Miwa teaches the process as applied to claim 16, further comprising moving the plunger to dispose under the carrier and the injection station while carrier is stationary (Figure 3).
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Miwa (JP4954726, machine translation provided), as applied to claim 16, in further view of Okazoe (JP2006056166, machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 19, Miwa teaches an injection molding method as applied to claim 16, where the first molding device and the second molding device are moved into the injection station by translation of the carrier (Figures 3 and 7-8 and [0022]).
Miwa does not teach the first molding device and the second molding device are moved into the injection station by rotation of the carrier.
Okazoe teaches an injection molding process using a conveyance unit that operated by translation (Figure 1, item 7 and [0015]-[0017]) or rotation (Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Miwa, in particular the mounting table operated with linear motion guide, with a rotational mounting table as taught by Okazoe, a known suitable conveyance unit capable of conveying injection molds through stations as taught by Okazoe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, and 4-15 are allowed.
Pertinent art include:
Chen (PG-PUB 2018/0339441) teaches a process for molding a formed polymer using an injection molding apparatus comprising an upper and lower mold and plungers (Figure 4 and 5, item 51). Chen teaches the movable portions (50) respectively have a
block-shaped substrate (51), slidably arranged in the first body part (21), and reciprocally displaceable between an injection molding position and a molding position, and an adjustment end face (52) located on one side of the substrate (51), and adjacent to the first mould surface (22) (Figure 4 and 5, item 51 [0021]-[0022]). Chen teaches by the position alternation due to rising of the substrate (51), the shape of the local section (41) of the mould chamber is altered, resulting in a decrease in the volume of the local section (41) [0026].
Plungers are commonly used in molding, including in foam-molding, such as in Skinner (PG-PUB 2019/0381706), Nomura (US 6,488,871), and Ozaka (US 6,926,940).
The prior art does not teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claim 1, in particular providing a plunger under the molding device and platform, applying a plunging force on the molding device; retracting the rod towards the base after the injection; and moving the plunger away from the injection station after the retraction.
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 HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights