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 Group I, claims 21-29, drawn to a contact lens mold half injection molding machine, in the reply filed on 04/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 30-37 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 06/03/2025 and 09/15/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has been advised to replace “a first subset of tool cavities and a second subset of tool cavities” in lines 11-12 to -- the first subset of tool cavities and the second subset of tool cavities --. 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 21-29 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 21 recites the limitations “the first subset of tool cavities” and “the second subset of tool cavities” in lines 6-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The remaining dependent claims 22-29 are also rejected under 112 (b) because they depend from, and thus include all the limitations of rejected claim 21.
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.
Claims 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson et al. (US 2016/0176092A1-of record) in view of Altonen et al. (US 2018/ 0001529A1).
With respect to claim 21, Atkinson teaches a contact lens mold half injection molding machine (“an injection-molding apparatus 20”, “for manufacturing molds for use in forming a contact lens”, Pa [0069]), the machine comprising:
a plurality of tool cavities, each tool cavity defining a space into which molten polymer can be injected so as to form a contact lens mold half (“tool halves 120”, Pa [0070]; “tool halves 220 that co-operate with tool halves 120 of the injection unit, to form injection cavities for formation of the molds”, Pa [0072]);
an injection unit in communication with the tool cavities, the injection unit being configured to melt a polymer and inject it into the tool cavities (“In injection unit, a screw is arranged to transport pellets from a pellet inlet to a nozzle. The pellets then pass into the heated inlet bush, where they are heated beyond their melting point, and the resultant liquid polymer flows into a manifold and then to the outlets of the manifold and into (FIG. 3) injection nozzles 130 of tool halves 120 of fixed plate 110. The melted polymer then passes into the injection cavity for forming the mold half.”, Pa [0077]).
a controller (Pa [0087]),
wherein:
the plurality of tool cavities comprises a first subset of tool cavities and a second subset of tool cavities (“Tool portion 150 includes an outermost surface 160 that, in the example shown in FIG. 3, is concave and shaped to define a (convex) outer surface of a mold half to be formed in the injection cavity. In other, otherwise identical apparatus associated with this apparatus, a concave inner surface of a mold half is formed by providing a tool portion having an outermost surface that is convex.”, Pa [0070]).
Atkinson does not explicitly teach that the injection unit comprises a first barrel from which molten polymer can be injected into the first subset of tool cavities, and a second barrel from which molten polymer can be injected into the second subset of tool cavities; and the machine is configurable to injection mold contact lens mold halves, by injecting molten polymer into the tool cavities and allowing the polymer to solidify, with one or more process parameters differing in value between the first subset of tool cavities and the second subset of tool cavities.
In the same field of endeavor, apparatuses and methods for injection molding, Altonen teaches that the injection molding apparatus 10 of the present disclosure heats one or more portions (e.g., surfaces) of the mold 28 in a manner that enhances the appearance (e.g., finish) and strength of the injection molded part(s), but does so by minimizing, if not totally eliminating, the drawbacks, particularly increased cycle time and energy consumption, associated with conventional methodologies (Pa [0062]), the injection molding apparatus 200 includes two injection systems 12, thereby enabling the production of more injection molded parts, the injection molding apparatus 200 includes a controller 50 for controlling both of the injection systems 12 (though it will be appreciated that the injection molding apparatus 200 can include two different controllers 50 for controlling the different injection systems 12), the controller 50 is communicatively connected with one or more sensors 52 and a screw control 36 and is also communicatively connected with one or more sensors 53 (Pa [0079]), the mold 228 in this example is a multi-faced cube mold that includes a movable central section 233, first and second sides 225, 227, and, additionally, third and fourth sides 229, 231, the mold 228 also includes four cavities 232A-232D formed or defined between the movable central section 233 and a respective one of the first thru fourth sides 225, 227, 229, 231 (Pa [0079]), and the mold 228 also includes a pair of heating elements 252A, 252B coupled to, and extending outwardly (along the longitudinal axis 238) from, the third and fourth sides 229, 231, respectively (Pa [0082]). Altonen further teaches that in a molding position, molten thermoplastic material 24 is injected into, flow through, and fill, each of the first mold cavities 232A, 232C, and at the same time a portion (e.g., the surface 260) of the second mold cavity 232B and a portion (e.g., the surface 268) of the fourth mold cavity 232D, each of which is positioned in the non-molding position, can be heated (Pa [0084]), when the molten thermoplastic material 24 has solidified in the first and third mold cavities 232A, 232C (such that an injection molding part has been formed) or when the second and fourth mold cavities 232B, 232D have been heated to the desired temperature, which may be measured by, for example, one or more sensors 52, 53, the mold 228 can be moved from the closed position shown in FIG. 4A to an open position, e.g., the position shown in FIG. 4B, an injection molding part 270 formed in each of the first and third mold cavities 232A, 232C can be ejected from the mold 228, the movable central section 233 is rotated from the first position shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B to a second position, e.g., the position shown in FIG. 4C (Pa [0085]), the mold 228 can again be closed (Pa [0086]), at this point, it will be appreciated that the second and fourth mold cavities 232B, 232D, each of which was heated to a desired temperature in the non-molding position, are now in the molding position, thus, the heated surfaces 260, 268 of the mold 228 heats the molten thermoplastic material 24, particularly the material 24 in contact or proximity therewith, as it is injected into, flows through, and fills, the second and fourth mold cavities 232B, 232D, thereby facilitating a smoother and stronger injection molded part from each cavity (Pa [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Atkinson with the teachings of Altonen to incorporate the injection-molding cavities for molding contact lens mold halves to Altonen’s injection molding apparatus in order to enhance the appearance (e.g., finish) and strength of the injection molded parts and minimize/eliminate increased cycle time and energy consumption, associated with conventional methodologies.
It is noted that the limitation “with one or more process parameters differing in value between the first subset of tool cavities and the second subset of tool cavities” is an intended use since the apparatus of the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
With respect to claim 22, Altonen as applied in the combination regarding claim 21 above further teaches that the first barrel (“20”) has a first plunger and the second barrel (“20”) has a second plunger, the first plunger and the second plunger being operable independently by the controller to move longitudinally and thereby eject molten polymer out of an outlet of the associated barrel (“The thermoplastic pellets 16, after being fed into the heated barrel 20, may be driven to the end of the heated barrel 20 by a reciprocating screw 22. The heating of the heated barrel 20 and the compression of the thermoplastic pellets 16 by the reciprocating screw 22 causes the thermoplastic pellets 16 to melt, forming a molten thermoplastic material 24.”, Pa [0052]; “the reciprocating screw 22 forces the molten thermoplastic material 24, toward a nozzle 26 to form a shot of thermoplastic material, which will be injected into one or more mold cavities 32 of a mold 28 via one or more gates 30”, Pa [0053]; “The controller 50 then commands the screw control 36 to advance the screw 22 at a rate that maintains a desired melt pressure of the molten thermoplastic material 24 in the nozzle 26.”, Pa [0056]; “it will be appreciated that the injection molding apparatus 200 can include two different controllers 50 for controlling the different injection systems 12”, Pa [0079] and Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 23, Altonen as applied in the combination regarding claim 22 above teaches that the controller 50 may also be connected to one or more sensors 53 located in or proximate to each of the one or more mold cavities 32 to sense pressure (Pa [0057], [0058]) and it will be appreciated that the injection molding apparatus 200 can include two different controllers 50 for controlling the different injection systems 12 (Pa [0079]), thus it is noted that the limitation “the controller is configurable to operate the first plunger so as to produce a first hold pressure profile in the first tool cavities, and to operate the second plunger so as to produce a second hold pressure profile in the second tool cavities, the first and second hold pressure profiles being different to one another” is an intended use since the apparatus of the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
With respect to claim 24, it is noted that the limitation “a peak hold pressure of the first hold pressure profile is different to a peak hold pressure of the second hold pressure profile” is an intended use since the apparatus of the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
With respect to claim 25, it is noted that the limitation “a hold time of the first hold pressure profile is different to a hold time of the second hold pressure profile.” is an intended use since the apparatus of the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
With respect to claim 26, Altonen as applied in the combination regarding claim 22 above further teaches that the first plunger has a first screw (“22”) and the second plunger has a second screw (“22”), each plunger being operable by the controller to rotate and thereby cause the associated screw to urge polymer towards the outlet of the associated barrel (“The thermoplastic pellets 16, after being fed into the heated barrel 20, may be driven to the end of the heated barrel 20 by a reciprocating screw 22. The heating of the heated barrel 20 and the compression of the thermoplastic pellets 16 by the reciprocating screw 22 causes the thermoplastic pellets 16 to melt, forming a molten thermoplastic material 24.”, Pa [0052]; “the reciprocating screw 22 forces the molten thermoplastic material 24, toward a nozzle 26 to form a shot of thermoplastic material, which will be injected into one or more mold cavities 32 of a mold 28 via one or more gates 30”, Pa [0053]; “A controller 50 is communicatively connected with one or more sensors 52, located in the vicinity of the nozzle 26, and a screw control 36.”, Pa [0055]), and it will be appreciated that the injection molding apparatus 200 can include two different controllers 50 for controlling the different injection systems 12 (Pa [0079]), thus it is noted that the limitation “the controller is configurable to operate the first and second plungers differently to one another such that the first screw urges said polymer at a different back pressure to the second screw” is an intended use since the apparatus of the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
With respect to claim 27, Altonen as applied in the combination regarding claim 21 above further teaches that the first barrel has a first heater (“a heated barrel 20”) and the second barrel has a second heater (“a heated barrel 20”), the first heater and the second heater being arranged to heat polymer contained in the associated barrel (“The thermoplastic pellets 16, after being fed into the heated barrel 20, may be driven to the end of the heated barrel 20 by a reciprocating screw 22. The heating of the heated barrel 20 and the compression of the thermoplastic pellets 16 by the reciprocating screw 22 causes the thermoplastic pellets 16 to melt, forming a molten thermoplastic material 24.”, Pa [0052]). Even though the first heater and the second heater are controlled by the controller, one would have found it obvious to control the heaters in the barrels in order to melt the thermoplastic pellets. And, since Altonen teaches that it will be appreciated that the injection molding apparatus 200 can include two different controllers 50 for controlling the different injection systems 12 (Pa [0079]), it is noted that the limitation “the controller being configurable to operate the first heater and the second heater at different temperatures to one another” is an intended use since the apparatus of the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
With respect to claim 28, Atkinson as applied to claim 21 above further teaches that the first subset of tool cavities is associated with a first coolant path (“coolant flow passages 165, 250”) and the second subset of tool cavities is associated with a second coolant path (“coolant flow passages 165, 250”) which is separate to the first (Pa [0079]).
With respect to claim 29, Atkinson as applied to claim 21 above further teaches that the first subset of tool cavities are shaped to form male contact lens mold halves, and the second subset of tool cavities are shaped to form female contact lens mold halves (“Tool portion 150 includes an outermost surface 160 that, in the example shown in FIG. 3, is concave and shaped to define a (convex) outer surface of a mold half to be formed in the injection cavity. In other, otherwise identical apparatus associated with this apparatus, a concave inner surface of a mold half is formed by providing a tool portion having an outermost surface that is convex.”, Pa [0070]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. 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.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights