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 .
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.
Claims 2 and 10 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.
Claims 2 and 10, with separate dependencies, each recite, “wherein, in the assembling, the second article is removed the mold for assembly on to the first article.” The meaning of this limitation is unclear. Is it meant to recite “the second article is removed from its mold prior to [[for]] assembly on to the first article”? Is there a requirement for removal from the male mold, female mold, or both? Is it a more generic “the second article is removed for assembly on to the first article”? For the purpose of examination, claims 2 and 10 are interpreted as reciting “the second article is removed from the corresponding male mold or the corresponding female mold prior to assembly on to the first article.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Umezawa (JP 2002079542).
Regarding claim 1, Umezawa discloses a method for manufacturing using a mold having opposing first and second molds to mold at least three molded articles and bonding the molded articles with a bonding resin (claim 1, Fig. 1), the method comprising: molding a first article (6, Fig. 1b) and a second article (7, Fig. 1b), wherein the first article remains in the first mold (6 remains in 1a, Figs. 1a-e); molding a third article (8, Fig. 1b), wherein the third article remains in the second mold (8 remains in 3a, Figs. 1a-e); assembling the second article onto the first article (6 joined to 7, Fig. 1e); moving at least one of the first mold and the second mold to assemble the second article onto the third article (3 along with 3a moved to join 7 to 8, Figs. 1b-e),
wherein the first article which remains in the first mold and to which the second article is assembled is opposed to the third article remaining in the second mold (6 remains in 1a, assembled in opposed formation, Fig. 1e);
forming a bonding shape portion by combining the first article to which the second article is assembled with the third article (secondary injection, claim 14, Fig. 1e); and
combining the first mold with the second mold and performing bonding by pouring the bonding resin into the bonding shape portion (injection molding, claim 13, Fig. 1e).
Regarding claim 2, Umezawa discloses wherein, in the assembling, the second article is removed the mold for assembly onto the first article (male molds 1b, 3b are removed from the second article prior to assembly onto the first article, Figs. 1b-e).
Regarding claim 4, Umezawa discloses wherein a side of the second article is not retained by the mold during the bonding (side previously retained by 1b is not retained by mold 1b, Figs. 1b-e).
Regarding claim 5, Umezawa discloses wherein the assembling comprises inserting an insert member into a primary article (p. 6, claim 13).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the bonding resin is a molten resin (injected resin, claims 12, 15).
Regarding claim 15, Umezawa discloses a method for manufacturing using a three plate mold (claim 1, Fig. 1), the method comprising: molding, in a first mold of the three plate mold (1, 2, 3, Fig. 1b), a first article (6, Fig. 1b) and a second article (7, Fig. 1b); molding, in a second mold of the three plate mold (3, Fig. 1b), a third article (8, Fig. 1b); moving at least one of the first mold and the second mold (Figs. 1b-e); assembling the second article onto the first article (6 joined to 7, Fig. 1e); moving at least one of the first mold and the second mold to align the third article with the assembled first article and second article (3 along with 3a moved to join 7 to 8, Figs. 1b-e); and assembling the second article onto the third article (Fig. 1e), wherein the assembled first article and second article are retained in the first mold (6 retained in 1a as assembled with 7, Fig. 1e) and the third article is retained in the second mold (8 in 3a, Fig. 1e)).
Regarding claim 16, Umezawa discloses 16. The method of claim 15, wherein the molding of the third article is simultaneously performed with the molding of the first article and the second article (Fig. 1e).
Regarding claim 17, Umezawa discloses 17. The method of claim 15, wherein the assembled first article and second article is combined with the third article by bonding (results from secondary injection, claim 14, Fig. 1e).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umezawa (JP 2002079542) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwano (US 2021/0170647).
Regarding claim 3, Umezawa teaches wherein, in the bonding, the second article, the first article, and the third article are positioned and bonded together (Fig. 1e). Umezawa teaches a method substantially as claimed. Umezawa does not disclose wherein, in the bonding, the articles are positioned and bonded together while misalignment and inclination of the second article are corrected by a clamping operation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of injection molding components and bonding them with a secondary injection molding (Figs. 5A-6C), Iwano teaches wherein, in the bonding, the articles are positioned and bonded together while misalignment and inclination of the second article are corrected by a clamping operation ([0003]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Umezawa to clamp the molds and articles together because [0003] of Iwano that clamping again after moving components to bond them together helps with a highly accurate manufacturing flow path.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 11-14 are allowed.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 7 recites, “A method for manufacturing using a mold having opposing first and second molds and an intermediate mold provided between the first mold and the second mold to mold at least three molded articles and bonding the molded articles together with a bonding resin (claim 1, Fig. 1), the method comprising: molding a first article (6, Fig. 1b) and a second article (7, Fig. 1b) between the first mold and the intermediate mold (mold 1 and mold 2, Fig. 1b), wherein the first article and the second article remain in the intermediate mold; molding a third article between the second mold and the intermediate mold, wherein the third article remains in the second mold; assembling the second molded article onto the first article; moving at least one of the intermediate mold and the second mold to assemble the second article onto the third article, wherein the first article which remains in the intermediate mold and to which the second article is assembled is opposed to the third article remaining in the second mold; forming a bonding shape portion by combining the first article to which the second article is assembled with the third article; and combining the intermediate mold with the second mold and performing bonding by pouring the bonding resin into the bonding shape portion.”
For some of the limitations above, and based on similar logic as that presented for claim 1, Figs. 1a-f of Umezawa (JP 2002079542) teaches a number of the above limitations. However, the first article in Umezawa remains in the first mold (1, Fig. 1c), not the intermediate mold (2, Fig. 1c). References such as Gram (US 2005/0017413) teaches molding first and second components, and retaining them in the intermediate molds, but the ones that are assembled together are molded by opposite molds on the outside paired with one of the intermediate molds (See Figs. 1-2). Accordingly, Gram does not disclose each and every element. Further, Gram and Umezawa do not provide a rationale to modify either reference to teach each and every element.
Further, claims 8-14 depend from claim 7 and their limitations are similarly not taught by the available prior art.
The pertinent prior arts, when taken alone or in combination cannot be reasonably construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements and features of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed or provided in the manner as recited by the Applicant in claims 7-14.
However, as noted above, claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 112b.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Iwano (US 11,685,089) teaches subject matter similar to Iwano (US 2021/0170647), cited above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/John J. DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights