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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 9, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-16 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Rejections not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03.
The claim is to an injection molding support system, i.e. one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A prong one: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(11) and the October 2019 Update, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
The claim recites:
selecting, on a basis of the acquired information, at least one candidate material from among the plurality of materials;
creating a corrected molding condition for performing injection molding by using a combination of the selected candidate material and the mold, wherein the processor uses the sensor measurements to calculate specific flow properties including at least one of a pressure integral value from an injection start to a peak pressure and a maximum derivative value of pressure… wherein the corrected molding condition is created such that the physical quantity of molten resin in a resin inlet port of the mold is equal between different materials to ensure identical molded product quality;
These limitations recite concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the limitations fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A prong one: YES).
Step 2A prong two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section lll{A){2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
“An injection molding support system configured to include one or more computers each including a processor and a storage device, the processor being configured to perform processes of:
acquiring a production result using a combination of a mold and a predetermined material and material information of the predetermined material, wherein the material information includes fluidity determined from physical quantities measured by sensors mounted in advance in injection molding machines and molds, the sensors measuring the physical quantities at predetermined positions;
acquiring, from the storage device, the production result, the material information of the predetermined material, and material information of a plurality of materials acquired in advance,
automatically adjusts specific injection molding parameters including at least one of cylinder temperature, injection speed, back pressure, and screw rotation to achieve equal fluidity at a resin inlet port of the mold,
providing a user with the created corrected molding condition and the selected candidate material.”
The injection molding support system, the computers, the processor, and the storage device are a recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Thus, these limitations represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer.
Although the claim nominally requires these functions to be performed using a sensor, this generic apparatus implementation is not sufficient to take the invention out of the realm of abstract ideas. The sensor may be a tool that is used as recited in claim 1, but recited so generically that it represents no more than a mere instruction “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic component. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic electronic component as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
The limitations “acquiring a production result using a combination of a mold and a predetermined material and material information of the predetermined material; acquiring, from the storage device, the production result, the material information of the predetermined material, and material information of a plurality of materials acquired in advance,” merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because they claim mere data gathering.
The limitation “automatically adjusts specific injection molding parameters including at least one of cylinder temperature, injection speed, back pressure, and screw rotation to achieve equal fluidity at a resin inlet port of the mold,” does not integrate the invention into a practical application because it’s just “applying” the abstract idea. It can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment.
The limitation “providing a user with the created corrected molding condition and the selected candidate material” does not integrate the invention into a practical application because it’s just “applying” the abstract idea. It can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment.
It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the RBF network and a controller do not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(1) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'I, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A prong two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05
Regarding the additional elements:
The injection molding support system, the computers, the processor, and the storage device are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Thus, these limitations represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic components as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
The additional feature including “a sensor”, as recited in the claim may be a tool that is used for using the first frequency is recited so generically that it represents no more than a mere instruction “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic components as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
The limitations “acquiring a production result using a combination of a mold and a predetermined material and material information of the predetermined material; acquiring, from the storage device, the production result, the material information of the predetermined material, and material information of a plurality of materials acquired in advance,” represents mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and is recited at high level of generality. These limitation in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. This is also well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d) – receiving or transmitting data over a network.). Ozeki (US20200391414 A1) discloses acquiring input data including any molding condition including a type of resin, a type of additive, a blending ratio of the additive, a surface temperature of a mold, and a product of a holding pressure and a holding pressure time for any article molded by any injection molding machine. Horiuchi (US 20200254670 A1) discloses acquiring, for example, various pieces of information including static data, such as the type of the injection molding machine 2, the mass and material of the mold, and the type of the resin, time-series data on various physical quantities. Further, Tomiyama (US 20220080646 A1) discloses acquires input information including resin properties and acquires, as output information, a specified value of a physical quantity related to a kneaded resin or a kneading machine.
The limitation “automatically adjusts specific injection molding parameters including at least one of cylinder temperature, injection speed, back pressure, and screw rotation to achieve equal fluidity at a resin inlet port of the mold,” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because it claims mere data outputting. Shimokusuzono (US 20200198201 A1) discloses changes in the number of screw rotations, the heating cylinder temperature, and the back pressure in the same manner. Further, Hara (US 20200115546 A1) discloses adjusting the shearing force include methods in which the structure of the screws is altered, and methods in which the screw rotational rate and/or the cylinder temperature is controlled.
The limitation “providing a user with the created corrected molding condition and the selected candidate material” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because it claims mere data outputting. Shimokusuzono (US 20200198201 A1) discloses providing an injection molding system that assists an operator to obtain more suitable value of a plasticization condition for a resin used in an injection molding machine. Aoyama (US 20160236392 A1) discloses determines appropriateness of a molding condition setting value and informs an operator of a result of the determination is provided in a molding machine. Further, White (US 20150197054 A1) discloses providing an indication or intervention (e.g., an alarm) to indicate to an operator that the injection pressure has increased or decreased to an undesirable level, thus alerting the operator to a condition of the injection molding apparatus or process step requiring attention.
In view of the foregoing, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(d), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not qualify the claim as reciting “significantly more”. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-8 and 11-16, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claims 2 and 6 further define the material information, claim 3-4 further define the physical quantity, claim 5 further defines the selected candidate material, claim 7 further defines the inputting, claim 8 further defines the material, and claims 11-16 further define the processor, which have been established to include abstract ideas. There are no additional limitations in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 2-8 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 9, the claims have similar limitations as claim 1; moreover, claim 9 recites a method, which are generic computer components and do not practically integrate the invention nor amount to significantly more. The claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 10, the claim has similar limitations as claim 2, Therefore, the rejections applied to claims 2 above also apply to claim 10, and as such, they are not patent eligible.
Rejections based on Prior Art
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui et al. (JP2004009305A -hereinafter Tsutsui -Note: As the Machine translation attached) in view of Kanaya et al. (US20200293011A1 -hereinafter Kanaya) in view of Stiefel et al. (US20190389111A1 -hereinafter Stiefel).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsutsui teaches:
an injection molding support system configured to include one or more computers each including a processor and a storage device (see [0001]; Tsutsui: “The present invention relates to a user support system, and particularly to a user support system for an injection molding machine.” See [0021]: “The user support device 1 is represented by a computer such as a workstation, and includes a calculation unit 2 including a CPU, a storage unit 3, and a communication unit 4.”), the processor being configured to perform processes of:
acquiring a production result using a combination of a mold and a predetermined material and material information of the predetermined material; (see [0032]; Tsutsui: “It is assumed that the first injection molding machine 10-1 is set to manufacture a product using a combination of a mold and a resin that has not been used in the device (Step 1, hereinafter, the steps are denoted by S).”)
acquiring, from the storage device, the production result, the material information of the predetermined material, and material information of a plurality of materials acquired in advance, (see [0033]; Tsutsui: “The user support apparatus 1 receives the basic conditions (S3), searches the table A20, and extracts molding data including the same or similar mold, the same or similar resin, and the same or similar model (S4).”)
However, Tsutsui does not explicitly teach:
wherein the material information includes fluidity determined from physical quantities measured by sensors mounted in advance in injection molding machines and molds, the sensors measuring the physical quantities at predetermined positions;
selecting, on a basis of the acquired information, at least one candidate material from among the plurality of materials; creating a corrected molding condition for performing injection molding by using a combination of the selected candidate material and the mold,
wherein the processor uses the sensor measurements to calculate specific flow properties including at least one of a pressure integral value from an injection start to a peak pressure and a maximum derivative value of pressure, and automatically adjusts specific injection molding parameters including at least one of cylinder temperature, injection speed, back pressure, and screw rotation to achieve equal fluidity at a resin inlet port of the mold,
wherein the corrected molding condition is created such that a physical quantity of molten resin in the resin inlet port of the mold is equal between different materials to ensure identical molded product quality; and providing a user with the created corrected molding condition and the selected candidate material.
Kanaya from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
wherein the material information includes fluidity determined from physical quantities measured by sensors mounted in advance in injection molding machines and molds (see [0022]; Kanaya: “In the production system 100, a production condition under which the product is produced in the actual factory 2, data obtained by sensing during production of the product, data indicative of a production result, and the like are accumulated as production information.” See [0051]: “For example, at least one of production efficiency, production volume, yield, time required for production, production cost, quality, a shape (e.g., particle size, width, length, aspect ratio, weight, bulk density, or the like), physical properties (e.g., fluidity, specific heat capacity, pressure resistance, water content, bulk specific gravity, or the like), and appearance of the product may be used as an objective variable in the prediction model.”),
selecting, on a basis of the acquired information, at least one candidate material from among the plurality of materials; (see [0074]; Kanaya: “In a case where there are a plurality of condition candidates with respect to which an evaluation value has been determined to be not less than the reference value, the evaluation section 104 may select one condition candidate (e.g., a condition candidate with the highest evaluation value) from among the plurality of condition candidates and determine the selected condition candidate as a production condition under which the product is produced.”)
creating a corrected molding condition for performing injection molding by using a combination of the selected candidate material and the mold, (see [0075]; Kanaya: “Then at S15, the information processing method determines, as a production condition under which the product is produced, a production condition of a condition candidate with the highest evaluation value.”)
and providing a user with the created corrected molding condition and the selected candidate material. (see [0077]; Kanaya: “The following description will discuss, with reference to FIG. 8, a user interface (UI) for causing the information processing device 1 to determine an optimum production condition. FIG. 8 is a view illustrating an example of a UI screen for causing the information processing device 1 to determine an optimum production condition.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Tsutsui to include Kanaya’s features of the material information includes fluidity determined from physical quantities measured by sensors mounted in advance in injection molding machines and molds, selecting, on a basis of the acquired information, at least one candidate material from among the plurality of materials; creating a corrected molding condition for performing injection molding by using a combination of the selected candidate material and the mold, and providing a user with the created corrected molding condition and the selected candidate material. Doing so would achieve a significant improvement in productivity. (Kanaya, [0088])
However, it does not explicitly teach:
the sensors measuring the physical quantities at predetermined positions;
wherein the processor uses the sensor measurements to calculate specific flow properties including at least one of a pressure integral value from an injection start to a peak pressure and a maximum derivative value of pressure, and automatically adjusts specific injection molding parameters including at least one of cylinder temperature, injection speed, back pressure, and screw rotation to achieve equal fluidity at a resin inlet port of the mold, wherein the corrected molding condition is created such that a physical quantity of molten resin in the resin inlet port of the mold is equal between different materials to ensure identical molded product quality;
Stiefel from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
the sensors measuring the physical quantities at predetermined positions; (see [0027]; Stiefel: “the controller 140 is in signal communication with at least one sensor, such as, for example, sensor 128 located in or near the nozzle 116 and/or a sensor 129 located in or near the mold cavity 122. In some examples, the sensor 129 is located in a manifold or a runner of the injection machine 100.” See [0029]: “The sensor 128 may be any type of sensor adapted to measure (either directly or indirectly) one or more characteristics of the molten plastic material 114. The sensor 128 may measure any characteristics of the molten plastic material 114 that are known and used in the art, such as, for example, pressure, temperature, viscosity, flow rate, hardness, strain, optical characteristics such as translucency, color, light refraction, and/or light reflection, and the like, or any one or more of any number of additional characteristics which are indicative of these.”)
wherein the processor uses the sensor measurements to calculate specific flow properties including at least one of a pressure integral value from an injection start to a peak pressure and a maximum derivative value of pressure (see [0052]; Stiefel: “In some examples, and as previously noted, the controller 140 ensures the measured cavity pressure matches the previously identified ideal cavity pressure profile 420, however in other examples, the controller may ensure the measured cavity pressure is within a specified range (e.g., one standard deviation) of the previously identified ideal cavity pressure profile 420. In other words, the injection profile 400 closes the loop within a certain range. For example, the controller 140 may set an upper and/or a lower limit on acceptable peak cavity pressure values when compared to a peak cavity pressure value taken from the previously identified ideal cavity pressure profile 420. Additionally or separately, the controller 140 may set an upper and/or a lower limit on acceptable integral (i.e., the area below the cavity pressure curve) values when compared to an integral value derived from the previously identified ideal cavity pressure profile 420. In one example, the upper and lower limits of the measured values (i.e., the peak cavity pressure and integral values) may be within approximately 5% of the values derived from the previously identified ideal cavity pressure profile 420.”), and automatically adjusts specific injection molding parameters including at least one of cylinder temperature, injection speed, back pressure, and screw rotation to achieve equal fluidity at a resin inlet port of the mold (see [0021]; Stiefel: “the system may adjust operational parameters of the injection molding machine in order for the output of the system to match that of the previously identified cavity pressure curve.” See [0032]: “The controller 140 can control any number of characteristics of the machine, such as, for example, injection pressures (by controlling the screw control 126 to advance the screw 112 at a rate which maintains a desired value corresponding to the molten plastic material 114 in the nozzle 116), barrel temperatures, clamp closing and/or opening speeds, cooling time, inject forward time, overall cycle time, pressure set points, ejection time, screw recovery speed, and screw velocity.”), wherein the corrected molding condition is created such that a physical quantity of molten resin in the resin inlet port of the mold is equal between different materials to ensure identical molded product quality; (see [0049]; Stiefel: “In this pattern recognition portion, the driving force exerted by the screw 112 is adjusted such that the measured cavity pressure 422 matches the previously obtained ideal pattern (e.g., the ideal cavity pressure profile 420). In other words, the cavity pressure measured by the sensor 129 becomes an input to the injection profile 400, and the controller 140 adjusts the pressure exerted on the screw 112 so the measured cavity pressure 422 matches the cavity pressure profile 420”. See [0044]: “To overcome the presence of varying material and/or environmental changes in the system, injection profiles that adjust the injection cycle have previously been employed, an example of which is depicted in the injection profile 300 of FIGS. 3 and 4. In the injection profile 300, the melt pressure setpoint 310 is adjustable as needed to cause the overall step time to remain constant (i.e., to remain equal to the step time obtained from the original/ideal injection cycle). In addition to the overall step time remaining constant, in these examples, the ratio between the fill time and PFA time is also constant, thereby ensuring that in the event the viscosity shifts, the entire mold cavity 122 will always be filled, thereby avoiding flashing. In these examples, a constant shear rate is maintained on the molten plastic material 114.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Tsutsui and Kanaya to include Stiefel’s features of the sensors measuring the physical quantities at predetermined positions; wherein the processor uses the sensor measurements to calculate specific flow properties including at least one of a pressure integral value from an injection start to a peak pressure and a maximum derivative value of pressure, and automatically adjusts specific injection molding parameters including at least one of cylinder temperature, injection speed, back pressure, and screw rotation to achieve equal fluidity at a resin inlet port of the mold, wherein the corrected molding condition is created such that a physical quantity of molten resin in the resin inlet port of the mold is equal between different materials to ensure identical molded product quality. Doing so would produce repeatably consistent parts by treating an ideal cavity pressure profile as a system input to control operation of an injection cycle. (Stiefel, [0008])
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Kanaya further teaches wherein the material information includes:
information in which an actual measured value of a physical quantity at a predetermined location in an injection molding machine or at a predetermined location in a mold attached to the injection molding machine when an optional molding condition is inputted to the injection molding machine to cause the injection molding machine to perform injection molding is associated with the optional molding condition (see [0022]; Kanaya: “In the production system 100, a production condition under which the product is produced in the actual factory 2, data obtained by sensing during production of the product, data indicative of a production result, and the like are accumulated as production information.” See [0046]: “These data may be data inputted by a user or may be data inputted from a measurement device such as a sensor.”); and
a recommended molding condition for the material. (see [0084]; Kanaya: “The user can input a production condition to the information processing device 1 to cause the information processing device 1 to predict a production result of production of the product under the production condition.”. See [0086]: “In the display area B2, a current production condition and a new condition, i.e., a production condition inputted by the user, are displayed. It is not necessary for the user to input all of the items of a production condition. The user may input only a part of the items of the production condition. In such a case, a value of an item that is not inputted by the user may be determined by the condition candidate generating section 101, or a value previously inputted by the user or a value of the current production condition may be used as the value of the item that is not inputted by the user.”)
The same motivation to combine Tsutsui and Kanaya a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above, Kanaya further teaches wherein the physical quantity includes at least any one of a temperature, a speed, and a pressure. (see [0051]; Kanaya: “physical properties (e.g., fluidity, specific heat capacity, pressure resistance, water content, bulk specific gravity, or the like)”)
The same motivation to combine Tsutsui and Kanaya a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above, Stiefel further teaches wherein the physical quantity includes a flow property calculated from any one or more of a pressure integral value from an injection start to a peak pressure, a pressure integral value from the injection start to mold opening, and a maximum derivative value of the pressure. (see [0052]; Stiefel: “In some examples, and as previously noted, the controller 140 ensures the measured cavity pressure matches the previously identified ideal cavity pressure profile 420, however in other examples, the controller may ensure the measured cavity pressure is within a specified range (e.g., one standard deviation) of the previously identified ideal cavity pressure profile 420. In other words, the injection profile 400 closes the loop within a certain range. For example, the controller 140 may set an upper and/or a lower limit on acceptable peak cavity pressure values when compared to a peak cavity pressure value taken from the previously identified ideal cavity pressure profile 420. Additionally or separately, the controller 140 may set an upper and/or a lower limit on acceptable integral (i.e., the area below the cavity pressure curve) values when compared to an integral value derived from the previously identified ideal cavity pressure profile 420. In one example, the upper and lower limits of the measured values (i.e., the peak cavity pressure and integral values) may be within approximately 5% of the values derived from the previously identified ideal cavity pressure profile 420.”)
The same motivation to combine Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel as discussed connection with claim 2.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui in view of Kanaya in view of Stiefel in view of Friesenbichler (WO2010057231A1 -hereinafter Friesenbichler -Note: As the Machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the selected candidate material is a material having a matching flow property within a range of the recommended molding condition for the material.
Friesenbichler from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the selected candidate material is a material having a matching flow property within a range of the recommended molding condition for the material. (see page 10, paragraph 8; Friesenbichler: “the name of the plastic material used and / or its trade name are entered by the operator, whereupon the adjustment ranges of the most important processing parameters or the resulting process limits recommended by the respective manufacturer are automatically imported into the startup assistant 15 from a stored material database become.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel to include Friesenbichler’s features of including a flow property calculated from any one or more of a material having the matching flow property within a range of the recommended molding condition for the material. Doing so would achieve a stable process sequence or for the fastest possible start of a qualitatively satisfactory production process. (Friesenbichler, page 4, paragraph 12)
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui in view of Kanaya in view of Stiefel in view of Yakimoto et al. (JPH06320588A -hereinafter Yakimoto -Note: As the Machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the material information includes a variation of the flow property when the flow property is acquired in advance and a variation of a product quality of an obtained molded product.
Yakimoto from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the material information includes a variation of the flow property when the flow property is acquired in advance and a variation of a product quality of an obtained molded product. (see [0052]; Yakimoto: “and the variation of the flow property of the selected candidate material acquired in advance and the product quality of the obtained molded product satisfy the accuracy required of the manufactured product.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel to include Yakimoto’s features of including a variation of the flow property when the flow property is acquired in advance and a variation of a product quality of an obtained molded product. Doing so would effectively predict and control the molded product quality with high accuracy. (Yakimoto, [0012])
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Tsutsui, Kanaya, Stiefel, and Yakimoto teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above, Tsuji further teaches wherein, in the inputting the production result using a combination of the injection molding machine, the mold, and the predetermined material, and predetermined material information acquired in advance for the predetermined material (see [0033]; Kanaya: “the condition candidate generating section 101 may subject a previous production condition (i.e., production condition applied in the past) to a process such as adding or subtracting a predetermined value to or from the production condition and use a production condition thus processed as a condition candidate, or may generate a condition candidate by a technique such as grid search.” See [0048]: “For example, the production condition may include at least one of: information on a raw material of the product; information on the production facility 3 included in the production system 100; and temperature, pressure, flow velocity, flow rate, throughput per unit time, valve-opening degree, a liquid level, an electric current value, a motor rotation rate, torque, sequence time (e.g., processing time), and/or hydrogen ion concentration during production of the product.”), an accuracy required of a manufactured product is input in conjunction (see [0044]; Kanaya: “a numerical value indicative of temperature, pressure, pH, or the like in each production step of the product serves as an explanatory variable. In order to achieve a required level of prediction accuracy, the number of explanatory variables is basically two or more”),
The same motivation to combine Tsutsui and Kanaya a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 7.
However, it does not explicitly teach: and the variation of the flow property of the selected candidate material acquired in advance and the product quality of the obtained molded product satisfy the accuracy required of the manufactured product.
Yakimoto from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches and the variation of the flow property of the selected candidate material acquired in advance and the product quality of the obtained molded product satisfy the accuracy required of the manufactured product. (see [0052]; Yakimoto: “Variations in the quality of molded products due to temperature changes can be eliminated, and molded products with high dimensional accuracy can be stably produced.”)
The same motivation to combine Tsutsui, Kanaya, Stiefel, and Yakimoto a set forth for Claim 6 equally applies to Claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui in view of Kanaya in view of Stiefel in view of Kodama et al. (JP H08-311503 A -hereinafter Kodama -Note: As the Machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does nor teach wherein the predetermined material is a virgin material, and the candidate material is a recycled material.
Kodama from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the predetermined material is a virgin material (see [0005]; Kodama: “the dimensional accuracy is formed only by the virgin material.”), and the candidate material is a recycled material. (see [0005]; Kodama: “when a waste material generated during injection molding and a virgin material are mixed and repeatedly reused as a recycled material, the weight ratio of the virgin material to the waste material used once for molding is as follows. It is mixed and reused so as to be 75 wt% or more with respect to the recycled material used for injection molding.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel to include Kodama’s features of including the predetermined material is a virgin material, and the candidate material is a recycled material. Doing so would improve the molding accuracy of metal powder injection molded products using waste materials. (Kodama, Abstract)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui in view of Kanaya in view of Stiefel in view of Shimokusuzono et al. (US20200198201A1 -hereinafter Shimokusuzono).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does nor teach wherein the processor is further configured to:
control a plasticization motor to retract a screw and feed resin pellets from a hopper into a cylinder;
heat the resin pellets with heaters and rotate the screw to plasticize the resin into an evenly molten state; and
adjust a back pressure and number of rotations of the screw to control a density of the molten resin and a degree of rupture of reinforced fiber, wherein these variations affect the molded product quality.
Shimokusuzono from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
control a plasticization motor to retract a screw and feed resin pellets from a hopper into a cylinder; (see [0051]; Shimokusuzono: “The injection unit 2 performs plasticization and weighing of the molten resin, as a plasticization and weighing step, by moving the screw 12 back rotatably provided in the heating cylinder 10 while rotating the screw 12 by a drive section such as a motor,” See [0048]: “The injection molding machine 1 produces a molded article using a granular thermoplastic resin (pellets) as a raw material.”)
heat the resin pellets with heaters and rotate the screw to plasticize the resin into an evenly molten state; and (see [0010]; Shimokusuzono: “in injection molding, uniform melting of the resin is important to obtain a good molded article. The molten state (state of plasticization) of the resin is determined by a plasticization condition, such as the temperature of the heating cylinder and the number of screw rotations.”)
adjust a back pressure and number of rotations of the screw to control a density of the molten resin and a degree of rupture of reinforced fiber, wherein these variations affect the molded product quality. (see [0091]; Shimokusuzono: “The fluidity analysis is performed based on the back pressure, the number of screw rotations, and the temperature of the resin determined by the operator with the machine. A decision is thus made whether there is an unmelted region and whether an error occurs for plasticization in the set conditions is calculated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel to include Shimokusuzono’s features of control a plasticization motor to retract a screw and feed resin pellets from a hopper into a cylinder; heat the resin pellets with heaters and rotate the screw to plasticize the resin into an evenly molten state; and adjust a back pressure and number of rotations of the screw to control a density of the molten resin and a degree of rupture of reinforced fiber, wherein these variations affect the molded product quality. Doing so would efficiently perform trouble solving in molding, optimization of a screw shape, and the like. (Shimokusuzono, [0003])
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui in view of Kanaya in view of Stiefel in view of Kato et al. (US20170050361A1 -hereinafter Kato).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Stiefel further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
control an injection motor to advance a screw to inject the molten resin into a mold via a nozzle; (see [0024]; Stiefel: “The reciprocating screw 112 advances forward and forces the molten plastic material 114 toward a nozzle 116 to form a shot of plastic material that will ultimately be injected into a mold cavity 122 of a mold 118 via one or more gates 120 which direct the flow of the molten plastic material 114 to the mold cavity 122.”)
The same motivation to combine Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 12.
However, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the molten resin injected into the mold receives both a cooling effect from a wall surface of the mold and a heating effect from shear heating resulting from flow as the molten resin flows toward an inside of a cavity of the mold.
Kato from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: wherein the molten resin injected into the mold receives both a cooling effect from a wall surface of the mold (see [0003]; Kato: “the molten resin is cooled from a surface portion coming into contact with a cavity formation surface of the mold.”) and a heating effect from shear heating resulting from flow as the molten resin flows toward an inside of a cavity of the mold. (see [0002]; Kato: an injection molding device utilizes heat by a heater and shearing heat by rotation of a screw to heat pellet-like thermoplastic resin fed into a hopper to a molten temperature. “”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel to include Kato’s features of the molten resin injected into the mold receives both a cooling effect from a wall surface of the mold and a heating effect from shear heating resulting from flow as the molten resin flows toward an inside of a cavity of the mold. Doing so would contribute to a reduction in a risk of appearance defects in molded products without unnecessarily lengthening an injection molding cycle. (Kato, [0014])
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui in view of Kanaya in view of Stiefel in view of Draudt et al. (US3446889A -hereinafter Draudt).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to:
after the mold is filled with the molten resin, feed additional molten resin into the mold by holding pressure to compensate for volume shrinkage caused by cooling of the molten resin;
control a mold clamping force that closes the mold relative to pressure during injection and pressure during pressure holding to prevent slight mold opening after solidification of the molten resin that would affect molded product quality.
Draudt from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
after the mold is filled with the molten resin, feed additional molten resin into the mold by holding pressure to compensate for volume shrinkage caused by cooling of the molten resin; (see column 7, lines 48-55; Draudt: “pushing the molding material located rearwardly of said member forwardly to force said member forward and to move said measured charge from the forward end of said cylinder into said mold until said mold is filled, and immediately thereafter reducing the pressure in the forward end of said cylinder and maintaining said reduced pressure while the charge in the mold cools and shinks.” See column 8, lines 42-45; Draudt: “maintaining said ramming to permit plasticized material to move toward the mold and compensate for shrinkage of material chilling in the mold.”)
control a mold clamping force that closes the mold relative to pressure during injection and pressure during pressure holding to prevent slight mold opening after solidification of the molten resin that would affect molded product quality. (see column 7, lines 61-70; Draudt: “applying pressure against the molding material located rearwardly of said member to force both the molding material and said rotary member forwardly and to force plasticized material from said space into a mold cavity, reducing the pressure beyond the forward end of said cylinder by coaction between said member and said cylinder when the mold cavity is filled maintaining said reduced pressure while the material in the mold cools and shinks and putting said space out of communication with said mold cavity.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel to include Draudt’s features of after the mold is filled with the molten resin, feed additional molten resin into the mold by holding pressure to compensate for volume shrinkage caused by cooling of the molten resin; control a mold clamping force that closes the mold relative to pressure during injection and pressure during pressure holding to prevent slight mold opening after solidification of the molten resin that would affect molded product quality. Doing so would avoid harmful compression stresses in the injected material in the mold. (Draudt, column 3, first paragraph)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui in view of Kanaya in view of Stiefel in view of Nishimura et al. (JP-2004182957-A -hereinafter Nishimura - Note: As the Machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine that a candidate recycled material is derived from waste plastic that has undergone multiple degradations including thermal degradation during molding, degradation during use, foreign matter contamination during collection/sorting, and thermal degradation during re-pelleting before being re-pelleted;
acquire information on material-specific variation in advance and present the information to the user to allow determination of whether fluidity variation is appropriate with respect to performance required of a manufactured product; and
enable review of product design in response to the fluidity variation and reduction of required performance to maximize utilization of the recycled material while considering production yield during mass production.
Nishimura from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
determine that a candidate recycled material is derived from waste plastic that has undergone multiple degradations including thermal degradation during molding, degradation during use, foreign matter contamination during collection/sorting, and thermal degradation during re-pelleting before being re-pelleted; (see page 8, first paragraph; Nishimura: “in such recycling, a molded article or material from recycled plastic having sufficiently high physical properties has not been obtained because of the mixing of different polymers in the waste plastic. According to the present invention, it is possible to achieve the compatibilization of waste plastics containing different types of polymers, and to obtain recycled plastic materials having sufficiently high physical properties and molded articles composed thereof.”)
acquire information on material-specific variation in advance and present the information to the user to allow determination of whether fluidity variation is appropriate with respect to performance required of a manufactured product; and (see [0082]; “In injection molding, relatively high fluidity is required, and the MFR is usually 70 or less, preferably 0.1 or more and 60 or less, and more preferably 0.2 or more and 55 or less.”)
enable review of product design in response to the fluidity variation and reduction of required performance to maximize utilization of the recycled material while considering production yield during mass production. (see [0084]: “The optimum value of the fluidity of the mixed resin differs depending on the sheet, film, and bottle. In bottle molding, it is necessary to adjust the resin composition so that the fluidity becomes relatively small. In bottle molding, the MFR of the resin composition is usually 10 or less, preferably 7 or less, and more preferably 0.1 to 5.” See [0085]: “For sheets and films, the optimum fluidity differs depending on the production method. The fluidity of the polymer is relatively small in the production of sheets and films by the T-die method, and the fluidity is relatively large in the production of films by the inflation method. Is preferred.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel to include Nishimura’s features of determine that a candidate recycled material is derived from waste plastic that has undergone multiple degradations including thermal degradation during molding, degradation during use, foreign matter contamination during collection/sorting, and thermal degradation during re-pelleting before being re-pelleted; acquire information on material-specific variation in advance and present the information to the user to allow determination of whether fluidity variation is appropriate with respect to performance required of a manufactured product; and enable review of product design in response to the fluidity variation and reduction of required performance to maximize utilization of the recycled material while considering production yield during mass production. Doing so would achieve the compatibilization of waste plastics containing different types of polymers, and to obtain recycled plastic materials having sufficiently high physical properties and molded articles composed thereof. (Nishimura, [0058])
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui in view of Kanaya in view of Stiefel in view of Horiuchi (US 20200254670 A1 -hereinafter Horiuchi).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach: wherein: the material information is shared among a plurality of users through a cloud server; as a number of users increases, the system provides more cases where corrected molding conditions can be acquired by utilizing material-specific information acquired by other users; and the sharing of material-specific information among multiple users significantly reduces man-hours required to acquire the material-specific information.
Horiuchi from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: the material information is shared among a plurality of users through a cloud server; as a number of users increases, the system provides more cases where corrected molding conditions can be acquired by utilizing material-specific information acquired by other users; and the sharing of material-specific information among multiple users significantly reduces man-hours required to acquire the material-specific information. (see [0063]; Horiuchi: “he result of the estimation by the estimation unit 120 (the abnormality degree related to the state of the injection molding machine, the class to which the operating state of the injection molding machine belongs, etc.) may be used by being output for display on the display device 70 or output for transmission to a host computer, cloud computer, or the like through a wired/wireless network”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel to include Horiuchi’s features of the material information is shared among a plurality of users through a cloud server; as a number of users increases, the system provides more cases where corrected molding conditions can be acquired by utilizing material-specific information acquired by other users; and the sharing of material-specific information among multiple users significantly reduces man-hours required to acquire the material-specific information. Doing so would support maintenance of injection molding machines. (Horiuchi, [0002[)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui in view of Kanaya in view of Stiefel in view of Momono et al. (JP 6600500 B2 -hereinafter Momono).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Kanaya further teaches
wherein the corrected molding condition includes adjusting at least one of the injection speed, injection pressure, or resin temperature based on a comparison of viscosity characteristics between the predetermined material and the candidate material, and (see [0005]; Kanaya: “Changes in molding conditions can significantly affect properties of the molten plastic material. As an example, material specification differences between resin batches and changes in environmental conditions (such as changes in ambient temperature or humidity) can raise or lower the viscosity of the molten plastic material. When viscosity of the molten plastic material changes, quality of the molded part may be impacted. For example, if the viscosity of the molten plastic material increases, the molded part may be “under-packed” or less dense, due to a higher required pressure, after filling, to achieve optimal part quality. Conversely, if the viscosity of the molten plastic material decreases, the molded part may experience flashing as the thinner molten plastic material is pressed into the seam of the mold cavity.” See [0033]; “The signal or signals from the controller 140 may generally be used to control operation of the molding process such that variations in material viscosity, mold temperatures, melt temperatures, and other variations influencing filling rate are taken into account by the controller 140. Adjustments may be made by the controller 140 in real time or in near-real time (that is, with a minimal delay between sensors 128, 129 sensing values and changes being made to the process), or corrections can be made in subsequent cycles.”)
wherein the adjustment is calculated to achieve equal pressure integral values at the resin inlet port during filling. (see [0050]; Kanaya: “In other words, as the viscosity, melt density, and/or other characteristics of the molten plastic material 114 shift, compensation in the injection profile 400 is required both during and after the filling stage 402 to maintain the same molded part.” See [0045]: “As illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 4, during the injection profile 300, the controller 140 monitors the melt pressure 312 via the sensor 128 to maintain the same step time or fill rate. Accordingly, as the viscosity shifts, the melt pressure control compensates and adjusts the melt pressure setpoint 310. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 3, when the viscosity of the molten plastic material 114 increases, the melt pressure profile 310 shifts to an alternate melt pressure profile 310 a that operates at a higher melt pressure in order to maintain the same amount of shear on the molten plastic material 114. Accordingly, the sensed melt pressure depicted by the melt pressure curve 312 a is higher than the original melt pressure curve 312. Similarly, as illustrated in FIG. 4, when the viscosity of the molten plastic material 114decreases, the melt pressure profile 310 shifts to an alternate melt pressure profile 310 b that operates at a lower melt pressure in order to maintain the same amount of shear on the molten plastic material 114. Accordingly, the sensed melt pressure depicted by the melt pressure curve 312 b is lower than the original melt pressure curve 312.”)
The same motivation to combine Tsutsui and Kanaya a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 16.
However, it does not explicitly teach: evaluate molded product quality based on size, amount of warp, burr, scratch, glow, and color, wherein a product quality inspection of the molded product is performed automatically,
Momono from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: evaluate molded product quality based on size, amount of warp, burr, scratch, glow, and color (see page 5, first paragraph; Momono: “Molded products molded with an injection molding machine, etc., are free from defects related to the appearance, shape, and dimensions of the product, such as burrs, warpage, uneven color, surface scratches, and dimensional defects.”), wherein a product quality inspection of the molded product is performed automatically, (see page 5, first paragraph; Momono: “the inspection process has been automated.” See page 6, last paragraph: “a molded product inspection method that is performed using the displacement sensor 35 as described above will be described.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Tsutsui, Kanaya, and Stiefel to include Momono’s features of evaluating molded product quality based on size, amount of warp, burr, scratch, glow, and color, wherein a product quality inspection of the molded product is performed automatically. Doing so would accurately inspect warping and shape-related inspections. (Momono, page 5, paragraph 9)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument located within the page 9 which recites:
“The amended claims 1 and 9 now recite that "the processor uses the sensor measurements to calculate specific flow properties including at least one of a pressure integral value from an injection start to a peak pressure and a maximum derivative value of pressure, and automatically adjusts specific injection molding parameters including at least one of cylinder temperature, injection speed, back pressure, and screw rotation to achieve equal fluidity at the resin inlet port." This amendment addresses the examiner's Step 2A prong two analysis by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application of controlling physical manufacturing equipment.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “calculate specific flow properties…” recites mental process because a person can be performed using pen and paper by calculating specific flow properties. Moreover, the limitation “automatically adjusts specific injection molding parameters…” are additional elements. Besides, using the processor and the sensor for this purpose is akin to using a processor.
With respect to applicant’s argument located within the page 10 which recites:
“The amended claims integrate sensor measurements, mathematical analysis of flow properties, and automatic machine control into a unified technological solution. This goes well beyond applying an abstract idea on generic computer components and instead recites a specific improvement to injection molding machine operation.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “automatically adjusts specific injection molding parameters…” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because it claims mere data outputting. Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive because of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hakoda (US8168097B2) discloses variably controls the number of rotations of a drive motor to achieve the control of a discharge flow rate and a method of controlling such an injection molding machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117