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 .
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both “drive coupling” (see page 4, line 27) and “hook” (see claim 5, line 2). 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. 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.
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.
Claim 1-7 is 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 3 directs to the pulling element (11) and the traction element (11), Claim 6 has a traction element (11), and lastly Claim 1 teaches of either a traction element (11) and a pulling element traction (11). It is unclear the particular teachings are to be to separate elements or are to be the same element. Particularly this is unclear as everything is referred to the same numeral element of (11). Though, it is noted that the specification consistently refers to element (11) as traction element, and there does not appear to be any references to a pulling in the specification.
Lastly, there may arise of a written description issue regarding element (11) depending upon the what the particular elements are directed to and what is taught in the specification.
Claim 5 teaches of a hook (10), while further in the specification there is teaching of the drive coupling (10), it is unclear as to the particular part if these are the same or different types of elements.
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) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NAVARRA’38 (EP 3192638 B1, see IDS).
NAVARRA’38 teaches in Fig. 1, see element 4, bore with flat sidewall therein as rail and Fig. 2 with slider body 11, figure insert 12 and rack 7. Pushing element is actuated by gas cylinder. See also Figs. 1-3a
Re 1, NAVARRA’38 teaches of a slider assembly for injection molds, comprising:
a slider body (see connection between 11 and 12, see Fig. 2);
a figure insert ( 12) coupled to the slider body (1);
a slider rail (see 4) along which a rack (see 11) moves, said rack ( 11) being attached to the slider body (and insert 12);
characterized in that it also comprises:
a traction element (1) that moves a pushing element (7), the pushing element (7) being provided with teeth (21) that engage with the rack (see 11), so that the movement of the pulling element traction (7) causes the movement of the slider body (12) through the rack (11) and the pushing element (7).
Re 2 (upon 1), wherein the rack (11) and the pushing element (7) are perpendicular to each other. (see Figs. 1 and 2 of NAVARRA’38)
Re 3 (upon 1), wherein a shaft (1) passes through the pushing element (7) and the pulling element (7), the pushing element (1) and the traction element (7) being moveable along the shaft (1). (see Fig. 2 of NAVARRA’38)
Re 4 (upon 1), wherein the slider rail (see 4) comprises a slot (see hole), through which the rack (7) moves. (see Fig. 1 of NAVARRA’38)
Re 6 (upon 1), wherein the traction element (see 11) is a bushing. (see Figs. 1 and 2 of NAVARRA’38)
Re 7 (upon 1), wherein the slider rail (4) comprises a hole (see hole) through which the pushing element (11) and the shaft. (see Fig. 1 of NAVARRA’38)
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAVARRA’38 (EP 3192638 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NAVARRA’89 (US 2015/0209989 A1).
Re 5 (upon 1), wherein the rack comprises a hook.
NAVARRA’38 does not specifically teach of a hook. However, the NAVARRA’38 does teach of an element of a stop 2 that interacts with the rack 7.
Further, NAVARRA’89 teaches of a slide 8 that contains a rack 22 and further teaches of screw 20 that is affixed to the slide and therefore rack, wherein the screw can be seen as being the equivalent to the claimed hook.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the rack of the NAVARRO’38 with an additional screw as taught by NAVARRO’89 for aid in securing the rack to an adjacent element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, wherein the various references cited provide examples mostly of driving elements in injection molds, primarily rack drives.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights