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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US-20200139591) in view of Hepler (U.S. Patent No. 5589206).
Regarding claim 1, Saito teaches:
An injection molding device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a molding die including a fixed die ([0050]; Fig. 1, #1) and a movable die ([0050]; Fig. 1, #2);
a probe ([0051]; Fig. 1, #13) in which a probe flow path through which a plasticized material flows is provided ([0051]), the probe injecting the plasticized material toward a cavity formed by the fixed die and the movable die ([0055]; Fig. 1, #25); and
wherein the fixed die includes:
a first plate in which a first through hole is provided ([0050] – [0053]; Fig. 1, #22); and
a second plate located between the first plate and the movable die, a second through hole communicating with the first through hole being provided in the second plate ([0050] – [0053]; Fig. 1, #24),
the probe is disposed in the first through hole and the second through hole ([0050] – [0055]; Fig. 1).
Saito does not teach:
a partition member,
a first space is formed between an outer peripheral surface of the probe and an inner wall surface of the first through hole,
a second space is formed between the outer peripheral surface of the probe and an inner wall surface of the second through hole.
the partition member is disposed in the first through hole or the second through hole to surround the probe and partitions the first space and the second space.
However, Hepler, in a similar field of endeavor, an injection molding device, teaches:
a partition member, see Fig. 3, right below numeral 66,
a first space is formed between an outer peripheral surface of the probe and an inner wall surface of the first through hole,
a second space is formed between the outer peripheral surface of the probe and an inner wall surface of the second through hole.
Hepler teaches multiple gaps 66 and 68 (Col. 10, line 57 – Col. 11, line 2; Fig. 3, #66 and #68) between an outer peripheral surface of the probe (Col. 10, line 57 – Col. 11, line 2; Fig. 3, #30) and an inner peripheral surface of the through hole in the mold (Fig. 3), therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Saito to include the teachings of Hepler and include a first and second space between the outer peripheral surface of the probe and an inner wall surface of the through hole, with the purpose, as stated by Hepler, being to “form a gap of nonconducting air around substantially the entire length of body 30, insulating it from the possible heat loss to its otherwise intimate surroundings.” (Col. 10, line 66 – Col. 11, line 2).
the partition member is disposed in the first through hole or the second through hole to surround the probe and partitions the first space and the second space. This limitation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when looking at the combination of Saito and Hepler made above, using a rearrangement of parts, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results or criticality.
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious.
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Regarding claim 8, Saito teaches:
An injection molding die ([0050]; Fig. 1) comprising:
a fixed die ([0050]; Fig. 1, #1);
a movable die ([0050]; Fig. 1, #2);
a probe ([0051]; Fig. 1, #13), in which a probe flow path through which a plasticized material flows is provided ([0051]), the probe injecting the plasticized material toward a cavity formed by the fixed die and the movable die ([0055]; Fig. 1, #25); and
wherein the fixed die includes:
a first plate in which a first through hole is provided ([0050] – [0053]; Fig. 1, #22); and
a second plate located between the first plate and the movable die, a second through hole communicating with the first through hole being provided in the second plate ([0050] – [0053]; Fig. 1, #24),
the probe is disposed in the first through hole and the second through hole ([0050] – [0055]; Fig. 1).
Saito does not teach:
a partition member,
a first space is formed between an outer peripheral surface of the probe and an inner wall surface of the first through hole,
a second space is formed between the outer peripheral surface of the probe and an inner wall surface of the second through hole.
the partition member is disposed in the first through hole or the second through hole to surround the probe and partitions the first space and the second space.
However, Hepler, in a similar field of endeavor, an injection molding die, teaches:
a partition member, see Fig. 3, right below numeral 66,
a first space is formed between an outer peripheral surface of the probe and an inner wall surface of the first through hole,
a second space is formed between the outer peripheral surface of the probe and an inner wall surface of the second through hole.
Hepler teaches multiple gaps 66 and 68 (Col. 10, line 57 – Col. 11, line 2; Fig. 3, #66 and #68) between an outer peripheral surface of the probe (Col. 10, line 57 – Col. 11, line 2; Fig. 3, #30) and an inner peripheral surface of the through hole in the mold (Fig. 3), therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Saito to include the teachings of Hepler and include a first and second space between the outer peripheral surface of the probe and an inner wall surface of the through hole, with the purpose, as stated by Hepler, being to “form a gap of nonconducting air around substantially the entire length of body 30, insulating it from the possible heat loss to its otherwise intimate surroundings.” (Col. 10, line 66 – Col. 11, line 2).
the partition member is disposed in the first through hole or the second through hole to surround the probe and partitions the first space and the second space. This limitation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when looking at the combination of Saito and Hepler made above, using a rearrangement of parts, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results or criticality.
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious.
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US-20200139591) in view of Hepler (U.S. Patent No. 5589206), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Babin (US-20100183763).
Regarding claim 7, Saito in view of Hepler teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on, but does not teach the inclusion of a heat insulating member between the first and second plates. However, Babin, in a similar field of endeavor, an injection molding device, teaches:
wherein the injection molding device includes a heat insulating member ([0024] and [0028]; Fig. 1, #16) between the first plate ([0028]; Fig. 1, #14) and the second plate ([0028]; Fig. 1, #18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the injection molding device of Saito in view of Hepler to incorporate the teachings of Babin and include a heat insulating member between the first and second plates. The purpose, as stated by Babin, being the insulator plate is made from a more thermally insulating material than the surrounding plates ([0024]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-6 are objected to by virtue of dependency.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: There is no proper teaching or combination in the art of the injection molding system of claim 1 with the further limitation of the partition member including a first and second member, wherein the first member is sandwiched by the second member in a direction along the first and second through holes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights