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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 and species disclosed in Figure 3D in the reply filed on May 19th, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 3, 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 3 is directed to withdrawn species disclosed in specification [0028] and claims 13-16 are directed to withdrawn species disclosed in Figures 12A-E. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 19th, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 3, “the first mold performs injection” should say “the first mold performs the injection” for claim language consistency.
Claim 8, line 3, “a first ejection unit that performs injection to the first mold insert” should say “a first injection unit that performs the injection to the first mold insert” for claim language consistency.
Claim 8, line 4, “a second ejection unit” should say “a second injection unit” for claim language consistency.
Claim 10, line 5, “second molding product” should say “second molded product” for claim language consistency.
Claim 12, line 2, “molten resin” should say “the molten resin” for claim language consistency.
Claim 12, line 3, “the molten resin that the first product” should say “the molten resin of the first product” for claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4 and 7-10 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 2 recites the limitation “the moving the first mold” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “moving the first mold insert” in claim 1, line 8, “the first mold… are opened” in claim 1, line 7, or if this is a new limitation. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that this limitation is read as “the moving the first mold insert”. This interpretation is supported by Figure 3C.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “moving the first mold” in line 4. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “moving the first mold insert” in claim 1, line 8, “the first mold… are opened” in claim 1, line 7, or if this is a new limitation. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that this limitation is read as “the moving the first mold insert”. This interpretation is supported by Figure 3C.
The dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toda et al. (US 20160346969 A1; hereafter Toda).
Regarding claim 1, Toda discloses an article manufacturing method ([0001]; method for manufacturing a liquid-ejecting head), comprising:
molding a first product (Fig. 5B; [0023]; liquid-supply member H100) by closing a first mold (Fig. 5A; [0022]; stationary-side mold K100) onto a second mold (Fig. 5B; [0022]; movable-side mold K200) and injecting molten resin ([0024]) into a first mold insert (Fig. 6A; [0022]; slide mold K230) of the first mold wherein at least one injection unit (Fig. 5A; [0024]; injection nozzle K501) provided at the first mold injects the molten resin ([0024]);
joining the first product to a second molded product (Fig. 5B; [0023]; cover member H121) at the second mold ([0029]; resin that is compatible with both members is flowed from an injection nozzle K503 at a position where the liquid-supply member H100 and the cover member H121 are joined together);
separating a first plate (Fig. 5B; [0026]; mold piece K221) including the first mold insert from the first mold, as the first mold and the second mold are opened (Fig. 6D, 7C);
and moving the first mold insert to a position where the first product and the second molded product face each other (Fig. 7D; [0036]; the die slide mold K230 is moved so that the liquid-supply member H100 is located at a position that faces the cover member H121).
Regarding claim 2, Toda discloses the article manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the moving the first mold insert is performed by sliding the first mold insert along the first mold (Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 4, Toda discloses the article manufacturing method according to claim 2, wherein, for the molding of the first product, a first injection unit (Fig. 5A; [0024]; injection nozzle K501) of the at least one injection unit provided at the first mold performs injection ([0024]), and after moving the first mold insert, a second injection unit (Fig. 5A; [0036]; injection nozzle K503) of the at least one injection unit provided at the first mold performs injection to join the first product to the second molded product ([0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Toda discloses the article manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the second molded product is molded by a third injection unit (Fig. 5A; [0024]; injection nozzle K502), and the first product and the second molded product are joined ([0036]).
Regarding claim 7, Toda discloses the article manufacturing method according to claim 2, further comprising sliding a second mold insert ([0026]; mold piece K221 slides on movable-side mold K200) of the second mold.
Regarding claim 8, Toda discloses the article manufacturing method according to claim 7, wherein the at least one injection unit provided at the first mold includes a first ejection unit (Fig. 5A; [0024]; injection nozzle K501) that performs injection to the first mold insert ([0024]), and a second ejection unit (Fig. 5A; [0024]; injection nozzle K502) that performs injection to the second mold insert ([0024]).
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 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda et al. (US 20160346969 A1), in view of Naruse (JP 2007190871 A; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Toda discloses the article manufacturing method according to claim 5.
Toda does not explicitly disclose the third injection unit is provided at the second mold.
However, in the analogous art Naruse teaches an injection molding method ([0001]), comprising molding a first product (Fig. 2; [0023]; first member 64) by closing a first mold (Fig. 2; [0022]; first mold 14a) onto a second mold (Fig. 2; [0022]; second mold 14b) and injecting molten resin ([0015]) into the first mold using a first injection unit ([0023]; first injection unit 42) and molding a second product (Fig. 3; [0027]; second member 62) by injecting molten resin into the second mold using a second injection unit ([0027]; second injection unit 26). The first product and the second product are joined together (Fig. 5-6; [0027]).
Toda and Naruse are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of injection molding to form composite articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Toda with the teachings of Naruse to provide the third injection unit is provided at the second mold. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of products made of different types of synthetic resins to be integrally molded easily (Naruse [0007]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Toda discloses the article manufacturing method according to claim 6.
Toda does not explicitly disclose molten resin injected from the third injection unit to form the second molded product is different from the molten resin of the first product.
However, Naruse further teaches molten resin injected from the second injection unit to form the second molded product is different from the molten resin of the first product ([0012]).
Toda and Naruse are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of injection molding to form composite articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Toda with the teachings of Naruse to provide molten resin injected from the third injection unit to form the second molded product is different from the molten resin of the first product. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of products made of different types of synthetic resins to be integrally molded easily (Naruse [0007]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda et al. (US 20160346969 A1), in view of Geibel et al. (US 20130200547 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Toda discloses the article manufacturing method according to claim 4.
Toda does not explicitly disclose a first separate mold insert that covers an injection end portion of the first injection unit and separates the first injection unit from the first mold insert as the first mold and the second mold are opened.
However, in the analogous art Geibel teaches an injection molding method ([0047]), comprising molding a first product (Fig. 15; [0047]; cap 48a) and a second product (Fig. 15; [0047]; lid 26a) by closing a first mold (Fig. 15; [0045]; cavity-side mold 14) onto a second mold (Fig. 15; [0045]; core-side mold 12) and injecting molten resin (Fig. 15; [0002-0004]) into the first mold using at least one injection unit (Fig. 15). The first product and second product are joined in the process (Fig. 18, 20). The first product is formed in a mold insert (Fig. 16; [0048]; second hot half stripper plate transfer mechanism 16d) of the first mold, a separate mold insert (Fig. 17; [0049]; mold station portion 22a) covers an injection end portion (Fig. 17) of the injection unit and separates the first injection unit from the first mold insert as the first mold and the second mold are opened (Fig. 15-17).
Toda and Geibel are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of injection molding to form composite articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Toda with the teachings of Geibel to provide a first separate mold insert that covers an injection end portion of the first injection unit and separates the first injection unit from the first mold insert as the first mold and the second mold are opened. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for injection molding systems comprising transport mechanisms with a much smaller footprint (Geibel [0071]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Toda discloses the article manufacturing method according to claim 9.
Modified Toda does not explicitly disclose a second separate mold insert configured to cover an injection end portion of the second injection unit and to separate the second injection unit from the first mold insert as the first mold and the second mold are opened, after the first product is joined to the second molded product.
However, modified Toda teaches the claimed invention except for the duplication of the first separate mold insert at the first injection unit to provide a second separate mold insert at the second injection unit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the first separate mold insert at the first injection unit to provide a second separate mold insert at the second injection unit, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI). One would have been motivated to duplicate the first separate mold insert to provide a second separate mold insert for the purpose of allowing for injection molding systems comprising transport mechanisms with a much smaller footprint (Nagai [0071]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda et al. (US 20160346969 A1), in view of Nagai et al. (US 20180141247 A1; hereafter Nagai).
Regarding claim 11, Toda discloses the article manufacturing method according to claim 5.
Toda does not explicitly disclose the second molded product is a composite formed of different types of molded products.
However, in the analogous art Nagai teaches an injection molding method ([0004]), comprising molding a first product (Fig. 16; [0075]; passage lid member 2231) and a second product (Fig. 16; [0075]; passage forming member 2221 with second passage forming member 2222) by closing a first mold (Fig. 16; [0076]; fixed mold 822) onto a second mold (Fig. 16; [0075]; movable mold 832) and injecting molten resin ([0075]) into the first mold using at least one injection unit (Fig. 16; [0075]). The first product and second product are joined together ([0080]) and the second product is a composite formed of different types of products ([0076]).
Toda and Nagai are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of injection molding to form composite articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Toda with the teachings of Nagai to provide the second molded product is a composite formed of different types of molded products. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of composite products while suppressing changes in shape after injection molding (Nagai [0015]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/VIPUL MALIK/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights