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
The Amendment filed Jan. 07, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-9 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1, 3, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi et al. (US 10,416,617), further in view of Uchiyama (US 10,232,536).
Regarding claim 1, Shiraishi discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, an injection molding management system (e.g., as shown in Fig. 2) comprising: at least one processor (e.g., in a computer used in the centralized management system 30 (col. 8, lines 37-39; as shown in Fig. 2) including an identification information acquisition unit (e.g., the physical-amount data storage section 22 (col. 8, lines 14-32); another example, a robot for carrying a molded article (col. 7, lines 43-44)) and a defect category acquisition unit (e.g., the state observation section 21 (col. 7, lines 60-67 ; col. 8, lines 1-13));
at least one different processor that is different from the at least one processor, the at least one different processor capturing a single image for a molded product that has been molded by injection molding (for example, an input to the reward-conditions setting section 23 (i.e., one portion of the controlling function of the injection machine) may be performed via a personal computer, a tablet terminal, or the like used in the centralized management system 30 (col. 8, lines 36-39); a device for imaging a molded article and an image processing device (col. 7, lines 41-43); Thus, Shiraishi discloses several computers with processors are available in the controlling system of the injection machine; It is noticed that, when the optical device has taken an image of the molded article for an image processing, the image is processed one after another. In other words, the image process is always started from a single image); and
a computer memory (e.g., the physical-amount data storage section 22 (col. 8, lines 14-32)),
the identification information acquisition unit acquiring molded product identification information that identifies the molded product (i.e., a robot for carrying a molded article (col. 7, lines 43-44); it is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, a molded article extracting device (robot) 5 controlled by a device (8) for controlling robot (col. 7, lines 30-32) is cooperated with a camera (as shown in Fig. 2); it is also noticed that, an optical examination results of an optically molded article is conducted (col. 2, lines 48-49); Thus, at least the camera as shown in Fig. 2 or the optical examination device cooperating with the robot 5 is capable of identifying the molded articles);
the defect category acquisition unit acquiring, when the molded product is equivalent to a defective product (e.g., having burrs or marking after removing a runner (col. 7, lines 38-39)), first defect category information (for example, a device for optically examining burrs in a molded article (col. 7, lines 41-42); it is noticed that, in [0027] of Applicant (PGPubUS20230302702), burr is defined as one type of defect for the molded article) and second external appearance defect category information (for example, a device for optically examining marks of a removing runner in a molded article (col. 7, lines 41-42)) both of which have been obtained from the single image of the molded product, the first external appearance defect category information representing a category of an external appearance defect (i.e., represented by burrs) of the molded product and the second external appearance defect category information representing a category of an external appearance defect (i.e., representing by marks of removing the runner) of the molded product, the second external appearance defect category information being different from the first external appearance defect category information of the molded product; and
the computer memory storing the first external appearance defect category information and the second defect category information in association with the molded product identification information of the molded product (as shown in Fig. 2).
The first defect category and the second defect category may include the first external appearance defect category and the second external appearance defect category. They can be in one single image or in different images. Thus, it will be an intended use for the first defect category dedicates to the first external appearance defect category and the second defect category dedicates to the second external appearance defect category.
It is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in a coating apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. Ex parte Thibault,164 U.S.P .Q. 666 (Bd. Pat. App. 1969). A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647.
It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
Note: In re Pearson 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush 177 USPQ 705, 706 In re Otto et al 136 USPQ 458.
Shiraishi individually teaches image examination and defects identifications as claimed. Each of these configurations is utilized to monitor the injection molding process. Combining each of these embodiments into one configuration logically flows from their having been individually taught in the prior art as being known for achieving the same purpose.
Shiraishi discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the at least one processor includes a computation unit calculating (for example, in the reward calculation section 24 (col. 8, lines 42-49)) first number-of-defect-cases (e.g., representing by burrs) information formed by aggregating the first defect category information for each unit of aggregation, and second number-of-defect-cases (e.g., representing by marks after removing the runner) information formed by aggregating the second defect category information for the each unit of aggregation; and a display unit displaying the first number-of-defect-cases information and the second number-of-defect-cases information for the each unit of aggregation (It is noticed that, Shiraishi discloses, image data and image analysis data are included in the state observation section 21 (col. 7, lines 66-67) and an appearance calculation from image data on a molded article is included in the state observation section 21 (col. 7, lines 64-67 and col. 8, lines 1-7)).
Shiraishi discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the display device 6 (col. 8, line 40) is capable of displaying the first number-of-defect-cases information and the second number-of-defect-cases information for each unit of aggregation.
Shiraishi discloses that, the injection molding management system further comprises a computation unit calculating representative number-of-defect-cases information formed by aggregating the representative defect category information for each unit of aggregation (for example, in the reward calculation section 24 (col. 8, lines 42-49)).
For example, Shiraishi discloses that, having burrs (col. 7, lines 38-39) can be considered as the first external appearance defect category (i.e., in the total number of defect-cases occurring for the first category) and marking after removing a runner (col. 7, lines 38-39) can be considered as the second external appearance defect category (i.e., in the total number of defect-cases occurring for the second category).
Shiraishi discloses that, some of the above control devices are provided with a sensor (e.g., a device for optically examining a molded article (col. 7, lines 41-42)) to perform feedback control or feedforward control based on a closed loop (i.e., via the computation unit calculating the first category and the second category). In addition, some of the above control devices are used only to output data (e.g., via a display unit displaying the result of aggregation) (col. 7, lines 45-48).
Shiraishi discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the storage unit (e.g., the physical-amount data storage section 22 (col. 8, lines 14-32)) stores defect occurrence site information representing a defect occurrence site (e.g., the physical-amount data include … image data, image analysis data, … a size of a molded article, an appearance calculated from image data on a molded article, a length of each part of a molded article, an angle, an area, a volume, an optical examination result of an optically molded article (col. 7, lines 64-67 and col. 8, lines 1-7); it is noticed that, all of these data (especially an image data) will include where the defects (e.g., burrs) are or where their locations/sites are for a purpose of identification) in association with the first defect category information and the second defect category information (as shown in Figs. 2 (col. 7, lines 30-41) (e.g., through an image processing device)).
Thus, at least Shiraishi discloses that the image (data) of the molded article in which the locations of the defects (e.g., burrs (i.e., the first defect category) or marks (i.e., the second defect category)) are capable of being identified.
However, Shiraishi does not explicitly disclose that, for each of the first category and the second category, the defect category acquisition unit acquires, selection of at least one or more defect occurrence sites each indicating a site of occurrence of a defect from a plurality of sites into which an area corresponding to a shape of the molded product is divided.
In the same field of endeavor, molding monitoring, Uchiyama discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, an abnormality occurrence position specifying unit (e.g., item 102 in Fig. 1 (col. 4, lines 32-35)) for determining whether abnormality is present in the molding based on the image and specifying an abnormality occurrence position when the abnormality is present (col. 2, lines 25-29). These abnormality or defects may include the burr, or the short shot or the silver or the carbide (col. 1, lines 31-34). It is noticed that, these defects or abnormality can be divided into the first defect category and the second defect category. As illustrated in Figs. 2, 3, 4 in the teachings of Uchiyama, a numerical value indicating the number of abnormity occurrences on regions (of the molded part as shown in Fig. 2) has a lattice shape indicating abnormality occurrence positions (col. 5, lines 11-17).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shiraishi to incorporate the teachings of Uchiyama to provide that the defects on the molded parts are positioned/recorded at least through two-dimensional image. Doing so would be possible to monitor the molding process easily and efficiently, for example, a measure against a molding defect being further facilitated, as recognized by Uchiyama (col. 7, lines 43-65).
Regarding claim 3, Shiraishi discloses that, the defect category acquisition unit (e.g., the state observation section 21 (col. 7, lines 60-67 ; col. 8, lines 1-13)) specifies representative defect category information from among two or more types of defect category information (e.g., burrs and marks in the molded part (col. 7, lines 21-44)) including the first defect category information and the second defect category information (e.g., image data and image analysis data (col. 7, lines 66-67)).
Regarding claims 5-8, Shiraishi discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the at least one different processor (e.g., one of a personal computer, a tablet, or the centralized management system 30 (col. 8, lines 37-39)) analyzes the single image, thereby inspecting a plurality of types of external defects (i.e., burrs and marks after removing the runner (col. 7, lines 38-40) (related to claim 7)) of the molded product to obtain the first external appearance defect category information and the second external appearance defect category information, and transmits the first external appearance defect category information and the second external appearance defect category information to the defect category acquisition unit (as shown in Fig. 2, the state observation section 21). Shiraishi discloses that, the defect category acquisition unit acquires the first external appearance defect category information and the second external appearance defect category information based on the single image via a user's input on a user operable input for a plurality of types of external defects of the molded product (e.g., an input to the reward conditions setting section 23 may be performed via personal computer (i.e., operated by a user via the display of the computer)) (related to claims 6, 8).
Regarding claim 9, Shiraishi discloses that, the defect category acquisition unit acquires the first external appearance defect category information (i.e., one in the group of burrs and marks after removing the runner, such the burrs (col. 7, lines 38-40)) and the second external appearance defect category information (i.e., one in the group of burrs and marks after removing the runner, such as the marks (col. 7, lines 38-40)) based on the single image via a user's input on a user operable input for a plurality of types of external defects of the molded product (e.g., an input to the reward conditions setting section 23 may be performed via personal computer (i.e., operated by a user via the display of the computer).
However, Shiraishi does not explicitly disclose that, the defect category unit acquires the selection of the defect occurrences sites, such that each of different categories does not correspond to two of the defect occurrence sites.
Uchiyama discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, for example, if a numerical value “4” is displayed in a certain region (i.e., a site), it indicates that the number of abnormality occurrence is four in the corresponding position (col. 5, lines 15-18).
As mentioned above in the teachings of Uchiyama, these abnormality or defects may include the burr, or the short shot or the silver or the carbide (col. 1, lines 31-34).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Shiraishi to have the defect category acquisition unit acquires the first external appearance defect category information and the second external appearance defect category information as Uchiyama teaches that it is known to have the defect category unit acquires the selection of the defect occurrences sites, such that each of different categories does not correspond to two of the defect occurrence sites. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/7/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (as amended) with respect to claim(s) 1 that the base reference of Shiraishi does not disclose that, for each of the first category and the second category, the defect category acquisition unit acquires, selection of at least one or more defect occurrence sites each indicating a site of occurrence of a defect from a plurality of sites into which an area corresponding to a shape of the molded product is divided and the teachings of Uchiyama is silent regarding any idea of associating different categories with different sites, it is not persuasive.
The base reference Shiraishi discloses that, the defect category acquisition unit acquires the first external appearance defect category information (i.e., one in the group of burrs and marks after removing the runner, such the burrs (col. 7, lines 38-40)) and the second external appearance defect category information (i.e., one in the group of burrs and marks after removing the runner, such as the marks (col. 7, lines 38-40)) based on the single image via a user's input on a user operable input for a plurality of types of external defects of the molded product (e.g., an input to the reward conditions setting section 23 may be performed via personal computer (i.e., operated by a user via the display of the computer (col. 6, lines 26-28)).
Further, Uchiyama discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, for example, if a numerical value “4” is displayed in a certain region (i.e., a site), it indicates that the number of abnormality occurrence is four in the corresponding position (col. 5, lines 15-18).
As mentioned above in the teachings of Uchiyama, these abnormality or defects may include the burr, or the short shot or the silver or the carbide (col. 1, lines 31-34).
It is noticed that, as illustrated in Figs. 10, 11 of the specification of Applicant, for a molded part (i.e., AR as shown in Fig. 11), the defect categories for each site may vary (i.e., including burr, sink mark, burn mark, and/or haze). Thus, specifically as illustrated in Fig. 11, the site with ‘A’ may represent ‘BURR’ and the site with ‘D’ may represent ‘HAZE’. In other words, if the site with ‘A’ is identified with a ‘sink mark’, the secondary category can be assigned/added to the site.
Actually, in the teachings of Uchiyama, the number of abnormality occurrence is assigned with the corresponding position.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741