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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8, drawn to a molding apparatus.
II. Claims 9-10, drawn to a method of molding.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus of Group I can be used to mold products without assembling a first molded part and a second molded part by bonding them together with molten resin.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Inventions I-II require different fields of search, including different classification areas and different search queries. See MPEP 808.02(C).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Jason Okun on March 27, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-8. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-10 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (US 2012/0086141).
Regarding claim 1, Jung discloses a molding apparatus (abstract) comprising: a mold including a first mold (platen 4 supporting half mold 5, abstract [0043], Fig. 1), a second mold opposite the first mold (platen 2 supporting half mold 3, abstract [0043], Fig. 1), and an intermediate mold disposed between the first mold and the second mold (half molds of platen 6, abstract [0043], Fig. 1); a support member configured to support the intermediate mold (base plate 26 and turntable 27, [0044], Figs. 1-2); and an injection mechanism configured to inject molten resin (injection units 7 or 9, [0043], Fig. 1), wherein the support member includes a rotating mechanism (gear ring and intermeshing bevel, [0044], Figs. 2-3), and the intermediate mold is mounted on the rotating mechanism such as to rotate coaxially with a rotation axis of the rotating mechanism (platen 6 rotates, [0044] [0047], Figs. 1-3, 7, 10, 12-13).
Regarding claim 2, Jung discloses wherein a first molding operation is performed in which the molten resin is injected between the first mold and the intermediate mold (an intended use is recited, which is performed by [0046], indicating that the system is capable of so performing, Fig. 4), and a second molding operation is performed in which the molten resin is injected between the second mold and the intermediate mold, after the intermediate mold has been rotated by the rotating mechanism after the first molding operation (an intended use is recited, which is performed by [0047], indicating that the system is capable of so performing, Figs. 4, 6-7, 9).
Regarding claim 3, Jung discloses a guide rail on which the first mold and the second mold are mounted such as to open and close (linear guides 22 and sliding guides 28, [0044]), wherein the support member on which the intermediate mold is mounted is mounted on the guide rail between the first mold and the second mold (base plate 26 moves on linear guides 22, [0044])),
and the intermediate mold is configured to be rotated by the rotating mechanism when the first mold and the second mold are opened (an intended use is recited, which is performed by [0047], indicating that the system is capable of so performing, Figs. 4, 6-7, 9).
Regarding claim 4, Jung discloses wherein the intermediate mold is configured to rotate about an axis perpendicular to an opening/closing direction of the first mold and the second mold (capable of 90 degree rotation [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Jung discloses wherein the intermediate mold is configured to move in the opening/closing direction, in coordination with the first mold and the second mold (platen 6 on turntable 27 on base plate 26 moves on linear guides 22, [0044])).
Regarding claim 6, Jung discloses wherein the intermediate mold is supported from below by the support member (platen 6 is supported from below on turntable 27 on base plate 26, [0044], Figs. 1-2).
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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 2012/0086141) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Armbruster (US 2012/0328730).
Regarding claim 7, Jung teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed. Jung does not disclose wherein the intermediate mold is supported from above by a holding mechanism different from the support member.
However, in the same field of endeavor of injection molding device with a rotating center part between two opposite facing mold halves, [0004], Armbruster teaches wherein the intermediate mold is supported from above by a holding mechanism different from the support member (upper center block 10 and associated structure riding on tie bars 41 hold the rotatable center part 4 from above, [0040-41, Fig. 3).
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 apparatus of Jung to restructure the platen 6 and support structure of Jung to be a rotatable center part and associated supporting structure in Armbruster because [0004] of Armbruster teaches that the structure of Armbruster is a known structure to predictably perform the same function of a rotating center part in an injection molding machine.
Regarding claim 8, Jung teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed. Jung does not disclose wherein the rotating mechanism provided to the support member includes a hollow part to allow a component to be attached to the intermediate mold through the hollow part.
However, in the same field of endeavor of injection molding device with a rotating center part between two opposite facing mold halves, [0004], Armbruster teaches wherein the rotating mechanism provided to the support member includes a hollow part to allow a component to be attached to the intermediate mold through the hollow part (opening 18 constitutes a hollow part which allows a lower rotary unit 20 to be attached, [0035], Fig. 5).
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 apparatus of Jung to restructure the platen 6 and support structure of Jung to be a rotatable center part and associated supporting structure in Armbruster because [0004] of Armbruster teaches that the structure of Armbruster is a known structure to predictably perform the same function of a rotating center part in an injection molding machine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fig. 3, [0086] of Mitani (US 2024/0286326; US 12,629,873) teaches holes for ejector rods 31 under rotary platen 4, akin to the hollow part of claim 8, above. Jung (US 8,414,813) teaches subject matter similar to Jung (US 2012/0086141), 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
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights