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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 17, “the interlock conditions” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 2, lines 1-3, it states “wherein the processor executes when the processor…” This is confusing. It should read as, “wherein the processor determines…”
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morozumi (JP 2004-255589) in view of Maruyama et al. (2019/0118445).
As per claim 1, Morozumi teaches an injection molding machine comprising (Par. 1):
a processor; and a display, wherein the processer selects an operation mode from among a plurality of operation modes (Morozumi teaches of a manual operating mode, a semi-automatic operating mode and a fully automatic operating mode, which can be selected by an operator (Pars. 2, 23), and further teaches what takes place in the fully automatic operation mode (Pars. 3-4);
the processor acquires a present state of the injection molding machine or of peripheral equipment of the injection molding machine (Morozumi teaches that it is necessary to satisfy all of the start conditions, and further displays a state of each execution start condition (Pars. 3-5, 9). For example, it understands when the safety cover is not closed);
the process determines, based on the operation mode selected by the selection unit and the present state of the injection molding machine or of peripheral equipment of the injection molding machine, acquired by the processor, whether or not an operation in the operation mode is executable using a plurality of operation initiation conditions pertaining to the operation mode (Morozumi teaches that when one or more of the respective execution start conditions are not satisfied normally, and when the automatic operation mode is switched to the fully automatic operation mode, the operator is alerted that the execution start condition is not satisfied (not executable) (Par. 4); and
the processor causes, when the processor determines that the operation in the operation mode is not executable (Morozumi teaches that a message, “Please close the safety cover” is displayed when the operation mode is not executable (Par. 4)), interrelationships between the plurality of operation initiation conditions pertaining to the operation mode to be displayed in a prescribed display mode on the display (Morozumi teaches displaying a plurality of execution start conditions necessary for executing the operation mode, where a state related to each of the start conditions is also displayed (prescribed display mode) (Par . 9), and further teaches of software that realizes the sequence operation of various processes in the injection molding machine (Par. 16), which implies that the processes have an execution order which would interrelate).
Although Morozumi teaches of displaying interrelationships between the plurality of operation initiation conditions above, Maruyama also teaches of an injection molding machine that comprises a display unit that displays an order of startup operations of a plurality of elements, and how they interrelate (Pars. 6, 51, 85).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to also look to Maruyama for teaching of displaying interrelationships between the plurality of operation initiation conditions. This would have been obvious because like Morozumi, Maruyama also teaches of an injection molding machine that displays an order of operations, and by displaying these operations, an operator can easily check whether the operations of a plurality of elements are suitably set (Maruyama - Pars. 5, 53, 85).
Morozumi doesn’t specifically teach of a processor that generates interlock conditions to perform an operation in an operation mode, with priority to release the interlock of the operation, and display the interlock conditions on the display.
Maruyama teaches generating interlocking conditions to perform an operation in an operation mode (Pars. 81, 97 – operations are done to satisfy the interlock condition), with priority to release the interlock of the operation (Pars. 81, 97 – set operation of core 2 is completed before the set of operation of core 3 is performed so that an interlock condition is satisfied), and displays the interlock conditions on the display (Par. 97 - display unit displays order of operations to satisfy an interlock condition).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of the interlock operations taught by Maruyama into the system taught by Morozumi. This would have been obvious because both Morozumi and Maruyama are injection molding systems that display operations to an operator, and by performing and displaying these interlock operations would make it easy for an operator to judge whether the operations of the cores fulfill the interlock conditions (Maruyama - Pars. 81, 82, 98, 101, 102).
As per claim 2, Morozumi teaches the injection molding machine according to claim 1, wherein the processor determines that the operation in the operation mode is executable, the operation in the operation mode using the plurality of operation initiation conditions pertaining to the operation mode (Morozumi teaches that the execution of the predetermined operation mode is dependent on the necessary plurality of execute start conditions (Par. 9)).
As per claim 3, Morozumi teaches the injection molding machine according to claim 1, further comprising a memory configured to store beforehand the interrelationships between the plurality of operation initiation conditions (Par. 16). Maruyama also teach this in pars. 6, 51 and 85.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morozumi and Maruyama et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kodaira et al. (2022/0143888).
As per claim 4, although Morozumi teaches that the state for each start condition has an associated icon Ca, Cb, and Cc…(Par. 27), Morozumi doesn’t specifically teach wherein the interrelationships between the plurality of operation initiation conditions include numbers respectively added to the plurality of operation initiation conditions.
Kodaira teaches of an injection molding system that displays a chart (molding task list) of interdependent molding conditions and sub-conditions that include a condition ID, each with an associated number (Figs. 8B-C; Pars. 119, 123-130).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include numbers to identify the conditions in Morozumi. This would have been obvious because both, Morozumi and Kodaira, teach of injection molding systems, and more specifically, display the state of the conditions within the injection molding system, and by providing a number, it would allow an operator to understand the status of the exact molding task/condition (molding ID, number) that is being performed (Par. 123).
As per claim 5, although Morozumi suggests that the start conditions have a layered structure being that the icons Ca, Cb and Cc appear to turn on and off in a specific order (Par. 27), Kodaira specifically teaches that each molding task/condition is performed in a queue of operations (layered structure) (Figs. 8B-C, Par. 130).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have the conditions taught by Morozumi be put in a layered structure. This would have been obvious because both, Morozumi and Kodaira, teach of injection molding systems, and more specifically, Kodaira teaches that the order of performing the molding tasks/conditions can be critical to productivity (Pars. 130-131).
As per claim 6, Morozumi and Kodaira teach the injection molding machine according to claim 5, and Kodaira further teaches wherein the task list (display control unit) highlights information pertaining to an operation condition in a deepest layer in the layered structure, such as “Waiting” or “Not Scheduled Yet.” (Figs. 8B-C; Pars.125, 130). Morozumi also teaches when a start condition is satisfied, it is displayed as “off,” whereas when a start condition is not satisfied, it is highlighted, in order to differentiate the status (Pars. 10, 27, 31).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SCOTT T BADERMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3644. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F, every other Friday off.
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, John Cottingham, can be reached at 571-272-1400. 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.
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118