DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Election filed on 7/21/2026, claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 5-7 are withdrawn based on the Restriction requirement. Claims 1-4 are considered in the current Office 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 of Claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2010/280059 (“Shirai et al” hereinafter Shirai), machine translation provided, and JP2008/188906 (“Sato et al” hereinafter Sato), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 1, Shirai teaches a lifting apparatus (Figure 1, elevating mechanism 51), comprising:
a lifting plate (Figure 1, lower plate 44) which is arranged on a base of an injection molding machine (Figure 1, lower plate 44 located on the base 30 of the injection molding machine 11) and on which an injection apparatus (Figure 1, horizontal injection device 13) is mounted; and
PNG
media_image1.png
476
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a drive unit (Figure 4, servo motor 62) including a feed screw (see annotated Figure 1 which comprises of ball screw 52) and configured to move the lifting plate up and down relative to the base ([0021]),
wherein a screw shaft constituting the feed screw is fixed to the base (see annotated Figure 1, the screw shaft is fixed to the base 30).
Shirai teaches a ball nut 55 into which the ball screw 52 is inserted is attached to the upper plate 54 of the base 30 so as to be rotatable at a fixed position by a bearing ([0019]) but fails to explicitly teach wherein a nut constituting the feed screw supports the lifting plate and moves up and down integrally with the lifting plate while rotating.
However, Sato teaches a nut constituting the feed screw supports the lifting plate ([0007], the screw nut is screwed to the ball nut, and the lower end thereof is supported on the movable plate so as to be rotatable around the shaft) and moves up and down integrally with the lifting plate while rotating ([0010], since the ball screw shaft or the ball nut is rotated by the rotation driving means at the lower end of the ball screw mechanism for raising and lowering the injection device).
Shirai and Sato are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of injection molding device for plastic product processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int eh art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by Shirai such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Sato because the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known nut and screw combination to perform the same function of lifting the plate in vertical direction. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Shirai teaches the lifting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the drive unit includes a drive source (Shirai, Figure 4, servo motor 62) and a power transmission mechanism (Figure 4, driving pulley 63 and a first pulley 56 fixed to the driving shaft of the servo motor 62 are wound around another timing belt 64) configured to transmit a driving force output from the drive source to the nut ([0019] and [0021]), and wherein the drive source and the power transmission mechanism are provided on the lifting plate and move up and down integrally with the lifting plate (Figure 1, servo motor 62, driving pulley 63, first pully 56, servo motor 62 and timing belt 64 are all provided on the lower plate 44 and moved with lower plate [0019] and [0021]).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Shirai teaches the lifting apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the drive unit includes a plurality of feed screws (Shirai, Figure 4, a plurality of ball screws 52) each equivalent to the feed screw (The Examiner is interpreting the term “equivalent” as they are identical in term of structure. Figure 4, the plurality of ball screws 52 are equivalent), and wherein the driving force output from the drive source is transmitted to the nut of each of the feed screws via the power transmission mechanism ([0019] and [0021]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2010/280059 (“Shirai et al” hereinafter Shirai), machine translation provided, and JP2008/188906 (“Sato et al” hereinafter Sato), machine translation provided, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of CN116277735 (Zou), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Shirai teaches the lifting apparatus according to claim 3, but fails to teach wherein the power transmission mechanism includes: a drive sprocket driven to rotate by the drive source; a driven sprocket provided on each of the nuts; and a roller chain looped around the drive sprocket and the driven sprockets.
However, Zou teaches the power transmission mechanism (Figure 5, page 2, lines 52-54) includes: a drive sprocket (Figure 5, first sprocket 216) driven to rotate by the drive source; a driven sprocket provided on each of the nuts (Figure 7, second sprocket 231 and page 5, lines 28-36); and a roller chain (Figure 5, chain 215) looped around the drive sprocket and the driven sprockets (Figure 5).
Shirai and Zou are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of injection molding device for plastic product processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int eh art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by the modified Shirai such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Zou so that expansion and contraction of the screw can complete the adjustment of the angle on one side, and the other side is the same (page 3, lines 26-33). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known power transmission mechanism design to perform the same function of lifting the plate in vertical direction. See MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights