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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to amendment filed 05/13/2026. Applicant's arguments have been carefully and fully considered; and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3, and 8-9 have been amended. Claims 17-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein the sprue portion or the runner portion is used as a measurement location to determine the physical quantities without affecting appearance quality of a molded product” that this is intended use language and not being given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no disclosure of how to use a regression model to comparing fluidity characteristics of the predetermined material with the fluidity characteristics of the candidate material. As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of comparing fluidity characteristics of the predetermined material with fluidity characteristics of the candidate material using a regression model derived from the material information.
Claims 2-8 and 10-20 depend upon claims 1 and 9, thus inherit its deficiencies and therefore are rejected as well.
Relevant Art Cited by Examiner
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Ogino et al. (JPH10138308A) discloses providing a resin molded product capable of ensuring a sufficient quality of the resin molded product as a product at the stage of CAE analysis simulation. However, the description of Ogino would not be combinable with the cited art of record, as it is not teaching the amended recitations.
Fujita (US5035598A) discloses the molding condition can properly and immediately be corrected in accordance with data obtained by the molten material flow analysis component. However, the description of Fujita would not be combinable with the cited art of record, as it is not teaching the amended recitations.
Sung (US 20120024709 A1) discloses forming the surface of a high-quality surface skin material (i.e. skin sheet or film) or a plastic molded product with a predetermined pattern. However, the description of Sung would not be combinable with the cited art of record, as it is not teaching the amended recitations.
Yonemochi (US 20060076712 A1) discloses manufacturing a molded product coated with a coating layer having a uniform quality in its outside appearance. However, the description of Yonemochi would not be combinable with the cited art of record, as it is not teaching the amended recitations.
Di Domenico (US 20090053546 A1) discloses the molding condition can properly and immediately be corrected in accordance with data obtained by the molten material flow analysis component. However, the description of Di Domenico would not be combinable with the cited art of record, as it is not teaching the amended recitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. Therefore, the 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While the found prior art covers some of the features claimed by Applicant, none of the found prior art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the processor compares fluidity characteristics of the predetermined material with fluidity characteristics of the candidate material using a regression model derived from the material information, and calculates the corrected molding condition by determining parameter adjustments that compensate for differences in the fluidity characteristics to achieve matching physical quantities at the resin inlet port;” and “wherein the processor controls the injection molding machine to execute the injection molding process using the corrected molding condition to produce a molded product having the identical molded product quality as products produced using the predetermined material”, as recited in the currently amended independent claims 1 and 9.
Examiner identified Tsutsui (JP2004009305A), Tsuji (JP2008195023A), Seki (JP2009-137073A), Kanaya (US20200293011A1), Stiefel (US20190389111A1), Takahara (JP4786186B2), Friesenbichler (WO2010057231A1), Yakimoto et al. (JPH06320588A), Kodama et al. (JP H08-311503 A), Shimokusuzono et al. (US20200198201A1), Kato et al. (US20170050361A1), Draudt et al. (US3446889A), Nishimura et al. (JP-2004182957), Horiuchi (US 20200254670 A1), Momono et al. (JP 6600500 B2), Hakoda (US8168097B2), Ozeki (US20200391414 A1), Horiuchi (US 20200254670 A1), Tomiyama (US 20220080646 A1), Shimokusuzono (US 20200198201 A1), Okubo (US20200094461A1), Ogino et al. (JPH10138308A), Fujita (US5035598A), Sung (US 20120024709 A1), Yonemochi (US 20060076712 A1), and Di Domenico (US 20090053546 A1), as the most relevant prior art. While these references cover many of the features claimed by Applicant, none of these references distinctly teaches the aforementioned limitations as recited in independent claims 1 and 9.
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 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
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights