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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, (i) the second member not coming into contact with the first member; (ii) a stationary mold; (iii) a movable mold; (iv) an intermediate mold; (v) a mold unit; and (vi) a mold must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figure 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first member that is a member which operates in a second direction perpendicular to a first direction in which a stationary mold and a movable mold are closed and opened” in claim 1, claim 11, and claim 12 (see paragraphs [0043], [0055] and FIG. 1 in the specification as filed for the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function);
“a second member that is a member which operates in the second direction and that does not come into contact with the first member” in claim 1, claim 11, and claim 12 (see paragraphs [0043], [0055] and FIG. 1 in the specification as filed for the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function); and
“a sliding member that is attachably and detachably fixed to the second member and that is slidable with respect to the first member” in claim 1, claim 11, and claim 12 (see paragraphs [0043], [0055] and FIG. 1 in the specification as filed for the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5-7 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.
Regarding claim 5: the recitation “wherein the sliding member is attachably and detachably to a second split mold by a bolt” in lines 2-3 renders the claim indefinite as claim 5 depends indirectly from claim 1 which requires a sliding member being attachably and detachably fixed to the second member” as set forth in line 6 and it is not clear how the sliding member is attachably and detachably fixed to both a second split mold and a second member, nor is it clear how the second split mold and second member are structurally integrated into the operation mechanism. Claims 6-7 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 5.
Additionally, the recitation “which is configured as a mold of a blow molding mechanism applied to the movable mold” in lines 3-4 renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear which component/element is being configured as a mold of a blow molding mechanism applied to the movable mold.
Regarding claim 6: the recitation “a mold” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite given claim 6 depends from claim 5, which introduced a mold in line 3, and it is not clear if the recitation “a mold” in line 3 is referring to the same or different mold previously introduced in claim 5.
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.
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 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lisch et al. (US 2002/0037338) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2024/0190054).
As to claim 1: Lisch discloses the claimed operation mechanism comprising: a first member that is a member which operates in a second direction (Lisch at [0019]-[0021], Figure 1 – see the annotated version provided below);
a second member that is a member which operates in the second direction and that does not come into contact with the first member (Lisch at [0018], Figure 1 – see the annotated version provided below); and
a sliding member that is attachably and detachably fixed to the second member and that is slidable with respect to the first member (Lisch at [0023], [0024], [0025], Figure 1 – see the annotated version provided below).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lisch fails to disclose the claimed second direction being perpendicular to a first direction in which a stationary mold and a movable mold are closed and opened. While not actively claimed as part of the operation mechanism, the stationary mold and movable mold and their respective opening and closing direction are being interpreted consistent with the specification as filed such that the stationary mold and movable mold and their respective opening and closing direction are present and active in an injection molding step (see paragraph [0020]).
Consequently, Takahashi teaches a mold and injection molding device, where the mold 50 has a fixed mold 140 and a movable mold 150 and the movable mold 150 is moved along tie bars 36 in the Y-axis direction by the mold clamping unit 30 (i.e., second direction being perpendicular to a first direction in which a stationary mold and a movable mold are closed and opened) such that the movable mold 150 advances and retreats with respect to the fixed mold 140 (Takahashi at [0040], [0041], [0043], [0047], FIG. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the second direction being perpendicular to a first direction in which a stationary mold and a movable mold are closed and opened as such is known in the art of molding given the discussion of Takahashi above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 2: Lisch and Takahashi disclose the operation mechanism of claim 1. Lisch fails to disclose the claimed wherein the first member and the sliding member have hardness higher than hardness of the second member.
However, Takahashi further teaches the hardness of the first plate 160 being less than the hardness of the fixed mold 140; the hardness of the movable mold 150 being greater than the hardness of the second plate 170 (Takahashi at [0052], [0056], [0074], [0106]). Takahashi further teaches that mold parts which do not come into contact with each other during mold clamping can have a reduced hardness (Takahashi at [0074]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the first member and the sliding member having a hardness higher than a hardness of the second member as such is known in the art of molding given the discussion of Takahashi above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e., the mold parts can either have the same hardness, a higher hardness or a lower hardness relative to one another; where the mold parts which do not come into contact with each other during mold clamping can have a reduced hardness), with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 3: Lisch and Takahashi disclose the operation mechanism of claim 2. Takahashi further reads on the claimed wherein the sliding member has hardness higher than hardness of the first member (Takahashi at [0052], [0056], [0074], [0106]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 8: Lisch and Takahashi disclose the operation mechanism of claim 2. Takahashi further reads on the claimed wherein the first member has the hardness higher than the hardness of the sliding member (Takahashi at [0052], [0056], [0074], [0106]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 9: Lisch and Takahashi disclose the operation mechanism of claim 1. Lisch further discloses the claimed wherein the first member is a first split mold that is a split mold which is closed and opened in the second direction, and the second member is a second split mold that is a split mold which does not come into contact with the first split mold (Lisch at [0018], [0023], Figure 1).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lisch and Takahashi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Usami (US 2023/0049178).
As to claim 4: Lisch and Takahashi disclose the operation mechanism of claim 3. Lisch further discloses the claimed wherein the sliding member has a thickness determined in advance in the first direction (Lisch at [0023], Figure 1). Though, Lisch fails to disclose the claimed sliding member is configured by a non-oil supply plate in which a solid lubricant is blended in a material.
However, Usami teaches a mold, blow molding device, and injection molding device (Usami at Title). Usami further teaches the mold including a first mold for receiving a neck mold that holds a neck part of a resin preform having a bottom, and for enclosing the preform inside, and a second mold inserted into the neck mold, at least one of a first sliding surface between the neck mold and the first mold and a second sliding surface between the neck mold and the second mold including a solid lubricant embedded therein (Usami at [0006], [0026], [0031], [0046]). Usami recognizes the addition of a solid lubricant embedded in mold components being advantageous as it applies a lubricant on the sliding surfaces so as to prevent abnormal wear (galling) of the mold components (Usami at [0005]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the sliding member being configured by a non-oil supply plate in which a solid lubricant is blended in a material as such is known in the art of injection blow molding given the discussion of Usami above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
As to claim 5: Lisch, Takahashi and Usami disclose the operation mechanism of claim 4. Lisch further discloses the claimed wherein the sliding member is attachably and detachably fixed to a second split mold by a bolt (Lisch at [0018], [0023], Figure 1), which is configured as a mold of a blow molding mechanism applied to the movable mold (Lisch at [0015], [0017], [0018], Figure 1).
As to claim 6: Lisch, Takahashi and Usami disclose the operation mechanism of claim 5. Lisch further discloses the claimed wherein a thickness of the sliding member in the first direction is designed to be a thickness where a first split mold configured as a mold of the blow molding mechanism and the second split mold are not in contact with each other in a state where the sliding member is fixed to the second split mold (Lisch at [0015], [0017], [0018], [0023], Figure 1).
As to claim 7: Lisch, Takahashi and Usami disclose the operation mechanism of claim 4. Takahashi further discloses the claimed wherein a material having hardness higher than hardness of the second split mold is adopted for the first split mold and the sliding member (Takahashi at [0052], [0056], [0074], [0106]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lisch et al. (US 2002/0037338) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2024/0190054).
As to claim 10: Lisch discloses the claimed blow molding mechanism comprising: a first split mold that molds and grips a part of an intermediate molding product, among split molds that configure a part of a mold used in blow molding on the intermediate molding product, that are closed before start of the blow molding, and that are opened after the blow molding is completed (Lisch at [0019]-[0021], [0024], [0025], [0026], Figure 1 – see the annotated version provided below);
a second split mold that is the split mold which is opened after the blow molding is completed and then the first split mold is opened and that molds and grips a part of the intermediate molding product (Lisch at [0017], [0018], [0024], [0025], [0026], Figure 1 – see the annotated version provided below); and
a sliding member that is attachably and detachably joined to the first split mold and that is slidable with respect to the second split mold (Lisch at [0023], [0024], [0025], [0026], Figure 1 – see the annotated version provided below).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lisch fails to disclose the claimed wherein a direction in which the first split mold and the second split mold are closed and opened is perpendicular to a direction in which a stationary mold and a movable mold are closed and opened. While not actively claimed as part of the blow molding mechanism, the stationary mold and movable mold and their respective opening and closing direction are being interpreted consistent with the specification as filed such that the stationary mold and movable mold and their respective opening and closing direction are present and active in an injection molding step (see paragraph [0020]).
Consequently, Takahashi teaches a mold and injection molding device, where the mold 50 has a fixed mold 140 and a movable mold 150 and the movable mold 150 is moved along tie bars 36 in the Y-axis direction by the mold clamping unit 30 (i.e., second direction being perpendicular to a first direction in which a stationary mold and a movable mold are closed and opened) such that the movable mold 150 advances and retreats with respect to the fixed mold 140 (Takahashi at [0040], [0041], [0043], [0047], FIG. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the second direction being perpendicular to a first direction in which a stationary mold and a movable mold are closed and opened as such is known in the art of molding given the discussion of Takahashi above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lisch et al. (US 2002/0037338) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2024/0190054).
As to claim 11: Lisch discloses the claimed split mold (i.e., blow mold 12) comprising: an operation mechanism, wherein the operation mechanism includes a first member that is a member which operates in a second direction (Lisch at [0019]-[0021], [0024], [0025], [0026], Figure 1 – see the annotated version provided below),
a second member that is a member which operates in the second direction and that does not come into contact with the first member (Lisch at [0017], [0018], [0024], [0025], [0026], Figure 1 – see the annotated version provided below), and
a sliding member that is attachably and detachably fixed to the second member and that is slidable with respect to the first member (Lisch at [0023], [0024], [0025], [0026], Figure 1 – see the annotated version provided below).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lisch fails to disclose the claimed second direction being perpendicular to a first direction in which a stationary mold and a movable mold are closed and opened. While not actively claimed as part of the operation mechanism, the stationary mold and movable mold and their respective opening and closing direction are being interpreted consistent with the specification as filed such that the stationary mold and movable mold and their respective opening and closing direction are present and active in an injection molding step (see paragraph [0020]).
Consequently, Takahashi teaches a mold and injection molding device, where the mold 50 has a fixed mold 140 and a movable mold 150 and the movable mold 150 is moved along tie bars 36 in the Y-axis direction by the mold clamping unit 30 (i.e., second direction being perpendicular to a first direction in which a stationary mold and a movable mold are closed and opened) such that the movable mold 150 advances and retreats with respect to the fixed mold 140 (Takahashi at [0040], [0041], [0043], [0047], FIG. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the second direction being perpendicular to a first direction in which a stationary mold and a movable mold are closed and opened as such is known in the art of molding given the discussion of Takahashi above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lisch et al. (US 2002/0037338) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2024/0190054).
As to claim 12: Lisch discloses the claimed mold unit (i.e., blow mold 12) comprising:
an intermediate mold that includes an operation mechanism (Lisch at Figure 1); and
wherein the operation mechanism includes a first member that is a member which operates in a second direction (Lisch at [0019]-[0021], [0024], [0025], [0026], Figure 1 – see the annotated version provided below),
a second member that is a member which operates in the second direction and that does not come into contact with the first member (Lisch at [0017], [0018], [0024], [0025], [0026], Figure 1 – see the annotated version provided below), and
a sliding member that is attachably and detachably fixed to the second member and that is slidable with respect to the first member (Lisch at [0023], [0024], [0025], [0026], Figure 1 – see the annotated version provided below).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lisch fails to disclose the claimed stationary mold; movable mold, and the second direction perpendicular to a first direction in which the stationary mold and the movable mold are closed and opened.
However, Takahashi teaches a mold and injection molding device, where the mold 50 has a fixed mold 140 (i.e., stationary mold) and a movable mold 150 (i.e., movable mold) and the movable mold 150 is moved along tie bars 36 in the Y-axis direction by the mold clamping unit 30 (i.e., second direction being perpendicular to a first direction in which a stationary mold and a movable mold are closed and opened) such that the movable mold 150 advances and retreats with respect to the fixed mold 140 (Takahashi at [0040], [0041], [0043], [0047], FIG. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the second direction being perpendicular to a first direction in which a stationary mold and a movable mold are closed and opened as such is known in the art of molding given the discussion of Takahashi above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights