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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 6/10/2025 has been received and considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, --A-- should be inserted prior to “Shut-off valve” and the “S” in “Shut-off valve” should be uncapitalized.
Claims 2-13, line 1, --The-- should be inserted prior to “Valve” and the “V” in “Valve” should be uncapitalized.
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 3 and 12 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.
Claims 3 and 12, it is unclear how many shutter members are being claimed. Claim 1 recites “a shutter member” (singular). Claims 3 and 13 recite “shutter members” (plural). It is unclear if there are more than one shutter member in claims 3 and 12 and, further, if the shutter members recited in claims 3 and 12 are intending to be the same structure as the shutter member in claim 1 or not.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-13, claims 3 and 12 as far as they are definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita Electric Works Ltd. (JPH07144347)(cited by the applicant in the IDS dated 6/10/2025 with included machine translation)(hereinafter “Matsushita”) in view of Amotech Co. Ltd. (KR20140039559)(cited by the applicant in the IDS dated 6/10/2025, machine translation included herewith)(hereinafter “Amotech”).
Matsushita discloses a shut-off valve for controlling a flow of molten material from an injector gate (4) towards a mold cavity (A, A1, A2) , comprising: a channel (2, 4), for the molten material, which extends along a first axis up to the gate (figs. 3-8), a shutter member (3) mounted movably along a respective second axis and so that a free end of the shutter member can move towards, and reach, a point inside the channel to throttle and/or close the channel, thus regulating said flow (paras. 15-16, fig. 5), an actuating member having a portion coupled to the shutter member so that a rotation of the actuating member causes a translation of the shutter member along the second axis from and/or towards said point (actuating member 5, including 5, 22, 28, 35, see para. 15 describing the operation and movement including rotation and translation).
Matsushita does not appear to disclose the actuating member comprising an annular stator fixed on the mold, an annular rotor rotatably placed inside or outside the stator and coupled to the shutter member, a first circular array of magnetic poles installed in the rotor, a second circular array of magnetic poles installed in the stator, the magnetic poles of the first and second circular array being magnetically interacting with each other to rotate the rotor with respect to the stator via a magnetic field generated by them.
Amotech teaches it was known in the art to have an actuating member that comprises an annular stator (60) fixed on the mold (as it is at least indirectly fixed), an annular rotor (70) rotatably placed inside or outside the stator and coupled to the shutter member, a first circular array of magnetic poles installed in the rotor (74), a second circular array of magnetic poles installed in the stator (66), the magnetic poles of the first and second circular array being magnetically interacting with each other to rotate the rotor with respect to the stator via a magnetic field generated by them (see page 3 of the machine translation, the 9th and 10th paragraphs, beginning with “The stator 60” and “The rotor 70”, see also the third and fourth paragraphs on page 4 of the machine translation, beginning with “In addition,” and “Then, the piston member 90”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuating member of Matsushita such that it is an annular rotor/stator with magnetic poles as taught by Amotech in order to provide a known, highly controllable, and relatively inexpensive to operate means for the actuation.
Regarding claim 2, Matsushita as modified further discloses wherein the stator is ring-shaped and structured to surround the rotor (as taught above by Amotech, see figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, Matsushita as modified further discloses wherein the rotor comprises one or more grooves for the coupling and command of respective shutter members (the grooves for the magnets 74, it is noted the recitation of “for the coupling and command of respective shutter members” is an intended use that has not been given patentable weight, the grooves are for the magnets and the rotor is coupled to the shutter member to actuate it, thus coupled indirectly and in actuatable coupling relationship).
Regarding claim 4, Matsushita as modified further discloses wherein the magnetic poles of the stator are permanent magnets or electromagnets (electromagnet with coils 66, see page 3 of the machine translation, the 9th paragraph, beginning with “The stator 60”).
Regarding claim 5, Matsushita as modified further discloses wherein the permanent magnets or electromagnets are fixed and/or placed on an annular cylindrical surface of the stator and facing the inside of the stator (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Matsushita as modified further discloses wherein the magnetic poles of the stator are windings configured to generate a radial magnetic field whose polar axis is directed towards the center of the stator (windings 66, see page 3 of the machine translation, the 9th paragraph, beginning with “The stator 60”).
Regarding claim 7, Matsushita as modified further discloses wherein the magnetic poles of the stator are windings configured to generate a radial magnetic field whose polar axis is directed towards the center of the stator (windings 66, see page 3 of the machine translation, the 9th paragraph, beginning with “The stator 60”).
Regarding claim 8, Matsushita as modified further discloses wherein the stator is fixed in a corresponding seat of an insert or plate of the mold (as taught above by Amotech, fixed in an insert, see the stator 60 fixed within an insert 50).
Regarding claim 10, Matsushita as modified further discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose wherein the rotor has a rotation axis that is parallel to the first axis.
Amotech further teaches the rotor having a rotation axis that is parallel to a similar channel (32, see fig. 1, both axes extending vertically).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsushita such that the rotor rotation axis is parallel to the first axis as taught by Amotech in order to have a more compact assembly that has the components in-line and especially or alternatively as it has been held that the re-arrangement of parts involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Regarding claim 11, Matsushita as modified further discloses wherein the shutter member has the shape of a straight stem which has a free end and at the opposite end is coupled to the actuating member (see figs. 1-8, 3 having an end at 2/4 and also an opposite end at the actuating member).
Regarding claim 12, Matsushita as modified further discloses wherein the rotor comprises one or more grooves for the coupling and command of respective shutter members (the grooves for the magnets 74, it is noted the recitation of “for the coupling and command of respective shutter members” is an intended use that has not been given patentable weight, the grooves are for the magnets and the rotor is coupled to the shutter member to actuate it, thus coupled indirectly and in actuatable coupling relationship).
Regarding claim 13, Matsushita as modified further discloses wherein the magnetic poles of the stator are windings configured to generate a radial magnetic field whose polar axis is directed towards the center of the stator (windings 66, see page 3 of the machine translation, the 9th paragraph, beginning with “The stator 60”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art alone or as modified is not seen to further disclose the stator and rotor extending around and surrounding the first axis and/or channel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Greb et al. (U.S. 12,036,710) discloses a valve pin for a hot runner assembly with a rotor and stator actuation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm est.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights