DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 01/27/26, for application number 17/873,868 has been received and entered into record. Claims 1-4 have been amended, Claims 11-13 were previously cancelled, Claims 5-10 and 14-17 were previously withdrawn, and Claim 18 has been newly added. Therefore, Claims 1-4 and 18 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama et al., US 2016/0101559 A1 (as listed in the IDS), in view of Kulick et al., US 2019/0332481 A1, and further in view of Chhabra et al., US 2016/0337169 A1
Regarding Claim 1, Uchiyama discloses an injection molding machine [Fig. 2] comprising:
a processor [controller 10, which performs malfunction detection];
a memory storing a program or configuration data which causes the processor to perform predetermined processing relating to a molding operation [controller 10 containing ROM 13 and RAM 14 to perform functions of servo CPU 15, and ROM 18 and RAM 19 corresponding to PMC CPU 17, as well as ROM 21 and RAM 22 corresponding to CNC CPU 20, and finally molding data saving RAM 23; ]; and
a monitoring circuit provided separately from the processor and configured to monitor an abnormality in the predetermined processing [controller 110, separate from controller 10; each of the plurality of controllers includes an other-injection-unit malfunction information acquisition section that acquires, as other-injection-unit malfunction information, malfunction information outputted by the malfunction information output section of another controller contained in the plurality of controllers but different from the controller, par 8, ll. 10-15];
wherein in a case where the abnormality occurs in the predetermined processing, the monitoring circuit automatically changes the operating state of the processor [when malfunction occurs, malfunction information is outputted to the controllers associated with the other injection units that form the injection molding machine. The controller associated with each of the other injection units having received the malfunction information carries out a malfunction process based on a preset malfunction process setting corresponding to the other-injection-unit malfunction information, par 9, ll. 2-8], and
the monitoring circuit is configured to update data relating to processing of the predetermined processing [an other-injection-unit malfunction process information acquisition section that acquires, as other-injection-unit malfunction process information, malfunction process information outputted by the malfunction process information output section of another controller contained in the plurality of controllers but different from the controller, par 12, ll. 12-18].
However, Uchiyama does not explicitly teach a host device; wherein in a case where an abnormality occurs in the processor, the monitoring circuit automatically reboots the processor in a predetermined boot mode in which a function relating to the molding operation is more limited than a normal boot mode, and communication is allowed, and the monitoring circuit is configured to, after rebooting the processor in the predetermined boot mode; receive, from the host device, an update program or update configuration data through the communication; and install the update program or the update configuration data in the memory, and the processor performs the predetermined processing by the update program or the update configuration data installed in the memory.
In the analogous art of error detection and recovery, Kulick teaches a host device; wherein in a case where an abnormality occurs in the processor, the monitoring circuit automatically reboots the processor in a predetermined boot mode in which a function relating to the molding operation is more limited than a normal boot mode, and communication is allowed, and the monitoring circuit is configured to reboot the processor in the predetermined boot mode [the error detection module 104 may instruct the user device 100 to boot with only a minimum level of functionality, such as a “safe mode” environment. This prevents the normal boot processes, which may include the failing software process. The error detection module 104 may transmit, using transceiver module 126, to a server 102, a request for a software update 128; i.e. rebooting in a safe mode after a software process failure and requesting software update 128 from a server 102 (host), par 40].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Uchiyama and Kulick before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the rebooting as taught by Kulick into the machine as disclosed by Uchiyama, to monitor, detect, and mitigate hardware and software failures [Kulick, par 3, 4].
However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach the monitoring circuit is configured to, after rebooting the processor in the predetermined boot mode; receive, from the host device, an update program or update configuration data through the communication; and install the update program or the update configuration data in the memory, and the processor performs the predetermined processing by the update program or the update configuration data installed in the memory.
In the analogous art of device recovery, Chhabra teaches the monitoring circuit is configured to, after rebooting the processor in the predetermined boot mode; receive, from the host device, an update program or update configuration data through the communication [the device monitors the neighbor during installation of a software update by the neighbor. The device detects an installation failure of the software update by the neighbor. The device causes recovery of the neighbor using the update recovery data, in response to detecting the installation failure of the software update by the neighbor, par 12, 30]; and install the update program or the update configuration data in the memory, and the processor performs the predetermined processing by the update program or the update configuration data installed in the memory [once the image/software update has been downloaded and validated by a particular device, the device may determine its own readiness to install the update (e.g., by running any number of pre-installation checks, by notifying a user interface device associated with an administrator, etc.). If a device is ready to install the update, it may select a peer/neighbor to monitor the device during installation of the update (image is downloaded, and so is necessarily stored in memory of the device), par 31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Uchiyama, Kulick, and Chhabra before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the installing of software update as taught by Chhabra into the machine as disclosed by Uchiyama and Kulick, to ensure updates to the appropriate and up-to-date software of a device [Chhabra, par 2].
Regarding Claim 2, Uchiyama discloses an injection molding machine [Fig. 2]. The remainder of Claim 2 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly. Chhabra further teaches rebooting the processor in the normal boot mode after the installation such that the processor performs the predetermined processing by the update program or the update configuration data installed in the memory [device is to be restarted after the installation of the software update, Claim 14].
Regarding Claim 3, Uchiyama, Kulick, and Chhabra disclose the injection molding machine according to Claim 2. Chhabra further teaches wherein the host device is configured to distribute the update program or the update configuration data relating to the predetermined processing [the device monitors the neighbor during installation of a software update by the neighbor. The device detects an installation failure of the software update by the neighbor. The device causes recovery of the neighbor using the update recovery data, in response to detecting the installation failure of the software update by the neighbor, par 12, 30].
Regarding Claim 4, Uchiyama, Kulick, and Chhabra disclose the injection molding machine according to Claim 3. Chhabra further teaches wherein in a case of being notified that the processor is rebooted in the predetermined boot mode from the processor after updating the program or the configuration data, the host device performs processing for booting the processor in the normal boot mode [device is to be restarted after the installation of the software update, Claim 14].
Regarding Claim 18, Uchiyama Kulick, and Chhabra disclose the injection molding machine according to Claim 1. Chhabra further teaches wherein the update program or the update configuration data is different from the program or the configuration data stored in the memory and used by the processor to perform the predetermined processing before installing the update program or the update configuration data [the device monitors the neighbor during installation of a software update by the neighbor. The device detects an installation failure of the software update by the neighbor. The device causes recovery of the neighbor using the update recovery data, in response to detecting the installation failure of the software update by the neighbor (update recovery data being different from software update), par 12, 30].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/27/26 have been considered but are moot due to the new rejection based on the references cited above, as well as the newly cited portions of the references previously presented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PT.
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, Andrew J Jung can be reached at (571) 270-3779. 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.
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175