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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 5/7/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2024-75064 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Please see also the Office’s communication dated 10/7/2025. Examiner believes there might be a number missing from the submitted Japanese Application number in the original ADS filed with this Application, meaning the number above may be incorrect.
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 1-9 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 claims 1, 4, 7, and 9, The term “many” in claims 1 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “many” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As described above, the term “many” is indefinite, as it is subjective in nature. Claims 2-8 are also rejected at least by their dependence upon claim 1.
This term “many” also appears in claims 4 and 7 – but is referring to the same element so this should be amended to not include this term, along with the above.
Regarding claim 2, Claim 2 recites the limitation "the degassing groove" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 requires “a plurality of flat plate-shaped degassing plate pieces, each of which is formed with a degassing groove . . . “ (emphasis added), meaning there are more than one degassing groove introduced in claim 1. Accordingly, it is not clear what is meant by “the degassing groove” when claim 1 requires more than one degassing groove.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (JP 2019-206135 A) in view of Kawai (US 2006/0051450).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Kondo discloses an injection molding mold comprising:
a columnar core mold (A1, A2) (Fig. 3);
(b) a pair of split molds (B1 and B2) (Figs. 3-4) disposed as to surround the core mold to form a cavity (C), wherein molten resin is injected into the cavity to mold an irregular tubular molded article opened only at one end (Fig. 9), and at an opened portion, provided with a quadrangular box-shaped great dimension (at the bottom) portion larger than the other portions (at the top) (see Fig. 9). The acts of using the claimed system (“. . . and thereafter, the split molds are separated . . . “) are not considered limiting, as an intended use. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 3- A machine translation is appended to the original copy of this reference.
Kondo does not explicitly disclose that there is a “piece plate stack” as is required in the claims. However, Kawai discloses an injection mold that includes “a number of thin plates” at the core of the mold in a mold including a core and a cavity (Kawai, par. 0024). The thin plates (3a, 3b) (par. 0025-0032) are placed at the bottom portion (corresponding with the box shaped portion of Kondo above) (see Kawai, Fig. 3) and placed with air bleeding grooves (20) as a means of venting the cavity. Kawai explains that the grooves allow air to flow out of the mold when resin is injected (Kawai, par. 0032) along with discharge holes (21) and they are placed in the split molds at the bottom, where the larger portion is present of the object.
Kondo discloses a “base” apparatus of an injection mold. Kawai discloses an “improvement” to the base apparatus that has been improved in the same manner as in the claimed invention, in that it further includes a stack of plates arranged as to form a venting means for the cavity. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have further included the stack of plates within the mold as required in the claimed invention, as to have provided a suitable means of venting in the ”base” apparatus of Kondo above.
Regarding claim 2, Kondo/Kawai discloses the subject matter of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the size of a degassing groove.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to have specified the size of the grooves are as claimed as it has been held non-inventive to discover the workable or optimum ranges when the prior art discloses the general conditions present in the claims. In this case, Kawai mentions a groove of about 0.1 mm, which is slightly larger than the claimed 0.02-0.03 mm.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Kondo/Kawai discloses the subject matter of claims 1-2, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the variation in thicknesses of the plates.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used any suitable thickness for the plates, as to have achieved the correct pressure conditions within the mold, during molding, based on the size of the grooves selected, which depends at least partially upon the thickness of each layer.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Kondo/Kawai discloses the subject matter of claims 1-2, and further discloses that there is a gas discharge gap through which gas flows to the outside of the mold (see Kondo, Figs 3-5).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Kondo/Kawai discloses the subject matter of claims 1-2, and further discloses that the mold can mold two different articles (P1-P4 as in Kondo, are four distinct moldings produced).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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 at (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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights