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 Arguments
Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 20 and cancelled claim 6. The limitations of claim 6 have been incorporated into claims 1 and 20. Applicant has also amended claims 15, 18, 19 and 20 to address the previous rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). These are corrected and the rejection under 35 U.S.C.§ 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that none of the references teaches that the disrupting device is configured to interrupt a supply of the injection mold as this is recited claim 1 (paragraph b. iii) and in claim 20 (paragraph b. v). Starkey (US 2014/0225292 A1), the primary reference used for the U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 20 does not teach or suggest an electronic circuit interconnected to at least one o f a temperature sensor and a melt or cavity pressure sensor and is configured for detection by a monitor of a critical condition of the injection mod based on data from the temperature and/or pressure sensor. Starkey simply collects data that can be used “should a tool or press unexpectedly cease operation” but does not stop the operation of the mold based on data detected by the monitor.
The secondary references used in the rejection of claims 1 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Lillestolen (EP 3 644 212 A1) IDS 06/19/2023, which is a reference utilized to disclose a tampering system to prevent unauthorized tampering and Catoen (US 2012/0231103 A1), which refers only to processing and storing time-stamped cycle data and not a critical condition of an injection mold. None these cited references teaches a disrupting device as recited in the independent claims. Starkey and Catoen, in particular, fail to show a disrupting device. Starkey mentions an alarm or indicator to alert a user while Catoen focuses on a cycle counting and monitoring system to determine prevailing conditions within the mold, but is silent as to a disrupting device interconnected to the electronic circuit. Additionally, Lillestolen relates to a tamper detection system that erases stored data in response to detection of unauthorized access. (Applicant Arguments/Remarks 03/16/2026 pp. 12-14).
The examiner counter argues that the amendments whereby the dependent
Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 which are now incorporated into claims 1 and 20
do not change the previous rejections of claims 1 and 20 under § 103 due to their incorporation because the examiner considers that they were determined using the broadest reasonable interpretation in relation to the scope of these claims, as before.
Moreover, it appears to the examiner that Starkey does meet the limitation of “wherein the disrupting device is configured to interrupt a supply of the injection mold, the supply is at least one of the following: a hydraulic supply, a pneumatic supply, an electrical supply, or a melted plastic supply and” the disrupting device is formed as a valve, a switch, or an actuator” where in paragraphs [0054] [0055] where if the monitor – 60 is removed, there is an actuator (actuation device comprising two pins – 82, which in some embodiments is a Pogo pin forming an electromechanical connection where the pin actuators are pressed and the force and the resulting movement causes a circuit , such as an electrical circuit, to close and/or open to trigger or initiate an event or time and cycle stamp on the device. This indicates to the examiner, under broadest reasonable interpretation, that this is a disrupting device in that when the detection of a removal of a monitor is unauthorized which can result in a conflict (paragraph [0056] and that this is caused by the interrupting of an electrical supply, the sensor reacts by opening and/or closing a circuit (paragraph [0055] [0056]).
Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of amended claims 1 and 20, this constitutes a disruption of the injection mold indirectly from a disrupting device in the case of the alternative of an electrical supply even though the injection mold may continue other operations.
The applicant further argues that modifying Starkey based on the Lillestolen reference renders Starkey unsuitable for its intended purpose because while the monitor of Starkey indicates the need for maintenance to prevent damage the tamper detection system of Lillestolen relates to monitoring physical tampering of a chassis or housing and restricting unauthorized access of data in response to such a physical event. Lillestolen responds by erasing all of the collected during operation of the injection mold and this would be directly contradictory to the purpose of the monitor described in Starkey which collects operational data to be evaluated for determining a problem of the injection mold. As a result, modifying Starkey with Lillestolen would not achieve a disrupting device configured to at least temporarily directly and/or indirectly disrupt the operation of the injection mold (Applicant Arguments/Remarks 03/16/2026 pp.14-15).
The examiner counter argues that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, Lillestolen does disclose the storage of sensor data, at least temporarily, such as RAM, PROM and EPROM (paragraphs [0055]- [0057]) where the detection of a critical condition and a response is provided after evaluation (Fig. 2 paragraph [0011]) and Lillestolen directly disrupts the operation of the injection mold by erasing and/or disrupting the stored program data (paragraph [0008]). One with ordinary skill would be motivated to combine Starkey and Lillestolen because the determination when a tamper condition occurs is important so that sensitive stored program data can be destroyed (i.e. removed, erased, wiped, disrupted) (paragraph [0029]). The expectation of some advantage is the strongest rationale for combining references. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) – See MPEP § 2144 II.
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(s) 1-5 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starkey (US 2014/0225292 A1) in view of Lillestolen (EP 3 644 212 A1) both IDS 06/19/2023 and further in view of Catoen (US 2012/0231103 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Starkey discloses an injection mold (Fig.2 paragraph [0026] mold – 50) suitable to be arranged in and during operation interconnected to an injection molding machine for injection molding of plastic parts (paragraph [0027] plastic injection molds are shown), and Starkey further discloses
at least one sensor, which is a Hall effect sensor used for recording of events based on removal count, however, Starkey further discloses operational temperature monitoring from mold diagnostic and telemetry sensors (paragraph [0073]).
Starkey further discloses what from a broadest reasonable interpretation is a tamper evident safeguarding assembly (Fig. 1 paragraph [0032] The battery is preferably sealed within the housing – 80 and therefore tamper resistant) for safeguarding of the injection mold comprising
an electronic circuit (Fig. 6 paragraph [0034] processor – 100) interconnected to the at least one sensor (Fig. 9 paragraph [0056] sensor – 83 triggered by magnet that operates a printed circuit board) and configured to detect at least one critical injection mold condition (Fig. 9 paragraph [0056 magnet triggers and records an event on monitor – 60).
Finally, Starkey discloses a disrupting device interconnected to the electronic circuit and configured to at least temporarily indirectly disrupt the operation of the Injection mold (paragraph [0050] an alarm or indicator is triggered to alert the user that mold maintenance is required) and
Starkey further discloses that the disrupting device is configured to interrupt a supply of the injection mold (paragraphs [0053] [0054] maintenance work by the user, the supply is in particular at least one out of the following: a hydraulic supply, a pneumatic supply, an electrical supply, or a melted plastic supply and the disrupting device is in particular formed as a valve, a switch, or an actuator (paragraph [0055] force on actuator is actuated by moving (in one embodiment, a Pogo pin) causing an electrical circuit to close and/or open). .
However, Starkey does not disclose that the electronic circuit interconnected to the at least one sensor comprises at least one member to store, at least temporarily any sensor data, a value derived from the sensor data or a combination thereof or at least one process configured to detect a critical condition based at least partially on the data stored in the memory nor does Starkey disclose the presence of a melt or cavity pressure sensor.
Lillestollen discloses a tamper detection system which is self-powering with architecture for electronic circuitry (abs, paragraph [0001]). Lillestollen further discloses the presence of a pressure sensor which is a piezoelectric transducer acting as a tamper detection transducer transforming pressure from tampering into an electrical signal representing it (paragraph [0008]).
This sensor data is stored by at least on one member configured to store it (Fig. 2 paragraph [0010] storing of program data in program memory – 120), which can be stored at least temporarily (paragraphs [0055]-[0057] where storage ranges from temporary storage such as RAM, PROM and EPROM to a computer system) sensor data received from the at least one sensor; and/or a value derived from the sensor data; or a combination thereof (paragraphs [0006] [0010] a tamper controller is configured to produce a tamper response when the tamper event is identified and program memory configured to store program data; tamper detector – 114 senses a tampering event as a result of the actuation of at least one component of the physical enclosure) and
at least one processor configured to detect a critical condition of the injection mold based at least partially on data stored in the memory Fig. 2 paragraph [0011] tamper controller – 114 evaluates one or more signals received from tamper switch – 116 and/or tamper detector -114 to evaluate the tamper condition and determine the tamper response); and
Lillestolen discloses a disrupting device interconnected to the electronic circuit and configured to at least temporarily directly and/or indirectly disrupt the operation of the injection mold where in this case, Lillestolen discloses directly disrupting the operation (paragraphs [0008] if tamper controller – 18 provides instructions to program memory – 20 that disrupt and/or erase the store program data from program memory – 20 thereby preventing the unauthorized access to stored program data).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Starkey with the teachings of Lillestolen whereby an injection mold for injection molding of plastic part comprises at least one sensor being at least one of a temperature sensor having a tamper evident safeguarding assembly for safeguarding of the injection mold having an electronic circuit interconnected to the at least one sensor with an indirect disrupting device to trigger an indicator or alarm to alert the user during the operation of the injection mold, as disclosed by Starkey,
would also include the elements of the tamper detection and response system of Lillestolen with its storage member configured to store, at least temporarily, sensor data and/or values derived from it received from at least one sensor, including a pressure sensor, and having at least one processor configured to detect a critical condition of the injection mold of Starkey, based on the data stored in memory and would apply the disrupting device of Lillestolen to directly disrupt the operation of the injection mold of Starkey.
One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine this teaching with the disclosure of Starkey because it can be important to determine when a tamper condition exists so that sensitive stored program data can be destroyed (i.e. removed, erased, wiped, disrupted) (paragraph [0029]).
However, Lillestolen does not disclose the presence of a melt or cavity pressure sensor.
Catoen teaches an injection molding system with a sensor unit array (abs) used in determining the cycle count of one or more mold components (paragraph [0024]). These sensors include a number of pressure sensor units (paragraph [0024]) including a cavity pressure sensor and a melt pressure sensor (Fig. 6 paragraph [0034] cavity pressure sensor – 192b and a pressures sensor unit can be disposed elsewhere in the melt stream). Additionally, a temperature sensor is also a part of the sensor array (paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill to have modified the combination of Starkey/Lillestolen with the teachings of Catoen whereby an injection mold comprises at least one sensor that is at least one of a melt or cavity pressure sensor in addition to a temperature sensor by which sensors a critical condition is determined based on at least partially on data stored in at least one memory. The one with ordinary skill would consider this feature to be advantageous because these pressure sensors for cavity and melt are indicators of prevailing conditions within an injection molding assembly and can detect a critical condition within the injection mold (paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Starkey further discloses that the electronic circuit is configured to actuate upon detection of a critical injection mold condition of the disrupting device (Fig. 6 paragraph [0057] the PM due point, display – 65 flashes an alert and/or an alarm.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Starkey further discloses that the electronic circuit is arranged in a housing attached to and/or incorporated in the injection mold (Fig. 2 paragraph [0033] processor – 100 is preferably positioned with respect to the housing – 80 and preferably sealed therein.).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 3 and Starkey further discloses that the housing is tamper evident, such that unauthorized access to the electronic circuit is detectable (paragraph [0053] possible to detect a difference between removing monitor – 60 for authorized purposes and for unauthorized purposes).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Starkey further discloses that the disrupting device is configured to self- actuate when disconnected from the electronic circuit (Fig. 2, paragraph [0053] showing additional or extra counts on the counter of monitor – 60 which is operated by actuator – 70).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Starkey further discloses that the disrupting device is configured to manipulate sensor data transmitted from a sensor arranged in or at the injection mold to a thereto connected external electronic circuit enabling the external electronic circuit based on the manipulated sensor data to at least temporarily prevent operation of the injection mold and/or the injection molding machine (Fig. 9 paragraph [0056] claim 10.sensor feels or senses that the electromagnetic circuit is complete, closed or open).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 7 and Starkey further discloses that the electronic circuit acts as the disrupting device (Fig. 9 paragraph [0056] activation device having a sensor can be triggered by a printed circuit board and produces an end result - triggers and records an event).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Starkey further discloses that the electronic circuit comprises at least one processor configured to determine at least one time interval
a. between receipt of two definable sensor data points; and/or
b. between two or more definable inputs received from an input device connected to the electronic circuit (Figs. 2, 9 paragraph [0057] user action within any desired set point and can set an initial PM point, such as cycles, and then a desired interval between PM activities.).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Starkey further discloses that the electronic circuit comprises
a. at least one memory is configured to store at least temporarily (Fig. 6, paragraph [0034] non-transitory, computer readable medium – 110)
i. at least one time interval (paragraph [0057] desired interval between PM activities); and/or
ii.. at least one input value received from an input device connected to the electronic circuit (paragraph [0056] data collected in real or actual time, such as on a live system); and/or
iii. a value derived from the sensor data and/or the at least one time interval and/or the at least one input value (paragraph [0057]); or
iv. a combination thereof (paragraph [0057]);
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 10 and Starkey further discloses that the at least one memory is configured to store reference data of the critical injection mold condition, the reference data comprising at least one threshold value and/ at least one comparison value (paragraphs [0047] [0040] interval in which the monitor writes data to internal storage, may write gathered data to storage, such as internal memory every 120 minutes; operation time may be compared with downtime and/or sleep time to reach an Activity Percentage) ; and the at least one processor is configured to determine if at least one out of the following:
a. the sensor data received from the at least one sensor (Fig. 9 paragraph [0056] movement and thus resulting removal count through an unlocked data analysis on a report generated in a software program or in real or actual time); and/or
b. the at least one time interval (paragraph [0057] desired interval between PM activities); and/or
c. at least one input value received from an input device connected to the electronic circuit (paragraph [0056] data collected in real or actual time, such as on a live system); and/or
d. a value derived from the sensor data and/or the at least one time interval and/or the at least one input value (paragraph [0057]); and/or
e. a combination thereof (paragraph [0057])
is above or below the at least one threshold value and/or mismatching with a comparison value, each of the threshold value and the comparison value respectively defining a critical injection mold condition (paragraph [0069 input information into the internal and/or external memory of the monitor – 60).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Starkey further discloses that the electronic circuit comprises at least one communication unit configured
a. to transmit an analysis request comprising data related to at least one condition of the injection mold to a computer system via a communication network enabling the computer system to obtain an injection mold analysis at least partially based on data of the analysis request (paragraphs [0056] [0060] unlocked data analysis on a report generated in a software program; save reports remotely by processing device and communicate, such as by email) and to transmit the injection mold analysis for display to a visual user interface (paragraph [0058] data shown on display) ; the injection mold analysis comprising:
i. at least one condition of the injection mold (paragraph [0057] PM due point, display – 65 flashes an alert and/or an alarm) and/or
ii. at least one key performance indicator (KPI) of the injection mold corresponding to at least one out of the following: a value, a goal, a status, a trend and/or a weight (paragraph [0059] to see all data and/or information except for cycle times and efficiencies, such as over a lifetime and/or recent); and/or
b. to receive an analysis response from the computer system via a communication network, the analysis response the comprising at least one condition of the injection mold and/or at least one key performance indicator (KPI) of the injection mold and/or instructions for the disrupting device (paragraph [0069] associated device may be used to input information into the internal and/or external memory of the monitor with respect to a particular desired setting, preventive maintenance operation or other data or operation includes an intended protocol or history of maintenance accomplished or needs to be done.).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 9 and Starkey further discloses that the at least one processor of the electronic circuit is configured to determine at least one key performance indicator (KPI) of the injection mold from data stored in the at least one memory (paragraphs [0056] [0060] unlocked data analysis on a report generated in a software program; save reports remotely by processing device and communicate, such as by email) and to provide the at least one KPI for display to a visual user interface connected to the electronic circuit (interface (paragraph [0058] data shown on display) wherein the at least one key performance indicator (KPI) of the injection mold corresponds to a value, a goal, a status, a trend, and a weight (paragraph [0059] to see all data and/or information except for cycle times and efficiencies, such as over a lifetime and/or recent).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Starkey further discloses that the electronic circuit is configured to trigger depending on at least one condition of the injection mold a display of maintenance information on a thereto connected visual user interface (Fig. 2 paragraph [0058] data shown on display – 65).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Starkey further discloses that the electronic circuit comprises a location module to determine a location of the injection mold within a production and/or storage area, in particular in relation to the injection molding machine (paragraph [0073] a GPS or RFID may be provided within or in association with the monitor – 60 to permit location tracking of the mold).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Starkey further discloses that the housing of the electronic circuit forms part of a cable connection box of the injection mold (Fig. 1 paragraph [0066] port – 90 positioned within the housing – 80 preferably connectable to an external computer)
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Starkey further discloses that the injection mold comprises at least one exchangeable part having a part identification and the electronic circuit being configured to store the part identification of the at least one exchangeable part and to detect at least one critical injection mold condition based on at least one definable critical condition of the at least one exchangeable part (Figs. 4, 5 paragraph [0072] user may enter the serial number to the particular monitor – 60 into an electronic database and track the particular performance of the mold (exchangeable part) – 50 associated with that monitor – 60).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 17 and Starkey further discloses that the at least one exchangeable part comprises an information carrier having stored thereon at least the part identification readable by an input device being connected to the electronic circuit, in particular the information carrier having stored thereon additionally at one out of the following: threshold data defining a critical condition of the at least one exchangeable part, historic data relating to a use of the at least one exchangeable part, or molding recipe data therefore (paragraph [0066] where the mold – 60 is the exchangeable part, monitor includes port connectable to an external computer so that the history and average cycle time and/or total cycles as well as well as any stored maintenance information may be read, recorded and/or offloaded.).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Starkey, Lillestollen and Catoen disclose all the limitations of claim 17 and Starkey further discloses that the electronic circuit is configured to determine a critical condition of the at least one exchangeable part based at least partially on data received from the at least one sensor (Fig. 9 paragraph [0056] sensor – 83 triggered by a magnet that operates a printed circuit board where the mold – 60 is the exchangeable part), in particular the data received in the electronic circuit from the at least one sensor relates to at least one out of the following: an operating temperature of the at least one exchangeable part or a cycle count of the injection mold, preferably of the at least one exchangeable part (Figs, 2, 6, 9 paragraph [0073] mold diagnostics and telemetry sensors and equipment may be connected with respect to the monitor – 60 to provide temperature monitoring and similar information in association with the reports.)
Regarding Claim 20, Starkey discloses an injection mold (Fig.2 paragraph [0026] mold – 50) suitable to be arranged in and during operation interconnected to an injection molding machine for injection molding of plastic parts (paragraph [0027] plastic injection molds are shown), and Starkey further discloses
at least one sensor, which is a Hall effect sensor used for recording of events based on removal count, however, Starkey further discloses operational temperature monitoring from mold diagnostic and telemetry sensors (paragraph [0073]).
Starkey further discloses what from a broadest reasonable interpretation is a tamper evident safeguarding assembly (Fig. 1 paragraph [0032] The battery is preferably sealed within the housing – 80 and therefore tamper resistant) for safeguarding of the injection mold comprising
an electronic circuit (Fig. 6 paragraph [0034] processor – 100) interconnected to the at least one sensor (Fig. 9 paragraph [0056] sensor – 83 triggered by magnet that operates a printed circuit board) and configured to detect at least one critical injection mold condition (Fig. 9 paragraph [0056 magnet triggers and records an event on monitor – 60).
Finally, Starkey discloses a disrupting device interconnected to the electronic circuit and configured to at least temporarily indirectly disrupt the operation of the Injection mold (paragraph [0050] an alarm or indicator is triggered to alert the user that mold maintenance is required) and
Starkey further discloses that the disrupting device is configured to interrupt a supply of the injection mold (paragraphs [0053] [0054] maintenance work by the user, the supply is in particular at least one out of the following: a hydraulic supply, a pneumatic supply, an electrical supply, or a melted plastic supply and the disrupting device is in particular formed as a valve, a switch, or an actuator (paragraph [0055] force on actuator is actuated by moving (in one embodiment, a Pogo pin) causing an electrical circuit to close and/or open). .
However, Starkey does not disclose that the electronic circuit interconnected to the at least one sensor comprises at least one member to store, at least temporarily any sensor data, a value derived from the sensor data or a combination thereof or at least one process configured to detect a critical condition based at least partially on the data stored in the memory. Neither does Starkey disclose that the tamper evident safeguarding assembly does so in an autonomous manner, without a need for external supervision nor that the electronic circuit is configured to actuate upon detection of a critical injection mold condition the disrupting device or that the electronic circuit is arranged in a housing attached to and/or incorporated in the injection mold nor does Starkey disclose the presence of a melt or cavity pressure sensor.
Lillestollen discloses a tamper detection system which is self-powering with architecture for electronic circuitry (abs, paragraph [0001]). Lillestollen further discloses the presence of a pressure sensor which is a piezoelectric transducer acting as a tamper detection transducer transforming pressure from tampering into an electrical signal representing it (paragraph [0008]). Moreover, this tamper detection system operates in an autonomous manner without a need for external supervision (paragraphs [0034] [0051] electrical power is drawn only when a tamper event occurs thereby energizing tamper power source to supply power to tamper unlock circuit; mechanically actuating the tamper switch when an indicia of the tamper event occurs, to cause transmission of an electrical signal)
This sensor data is stored by at least on one member configured to store it (Fig. 2 paragraph [0010] storing of program data in program memory – 120), which can be stored at least temporarily (paragraphs [0055]-[0057] where storage ranges from temporary storage such as RAM, PROM and EPROM to a computer system) sensor data received from the at least one sensor; and/or a value derived from the sensor data; or a combination thereof (paragraphs [0006] [0010] a tamper controller is configured to produce a tamper response when the tamper event is identified and program memory configured to store program data; tamper detector – 114 senses a tampering event as a result of the actuation of at least one component of the physical enclosure) and
at least one processor configured to detect a critical condition of the injection mold based at least partially on data stored in the memory Fig. 2 paragraph [0011] tamper controller – 114 evaluates one or more signals received from tamper switch – 116 and/or tamper detector – 114 to evaluate the tamper condition and determine the tamper response); and
wherein the at least one member is configured to store reference data of the at least one predetermined condition, the reference data comprising at least one threshold value and the at least one processor is configured to determine if at least one of the sensor data received from the at least one sensor and a value derived from the sensor data is above or below the at least one threshold value, the threshold value defining a critical injection mold condition (Fig. 2 paragraph [0011] tamper controller – 118 evaluates one or more signals received from tamper switch – 116 and/or tamper detector – 114 to evaluate the tamper condition and determine the tamper response; and
Lillestolen discloses a disrupting device interconnected to the electronic circuit and configured to at least temporarily directly and/or indirectly disrupt the operation of the injection mold where in this case, Lillestolen discloses directly disrupting the operation (paragraphs [0008] if tamper controller – 18 provides instructions to program memory – 20 that disrupt and/or erase the store program data from program memory – 20 thereby preventing the unauthorized access to stored program data).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Starkey with the teachings of Lillestolen whereby an injection mold for injection molding of plastic part comprises at least one sensor being at least one of a temperature sensor having a tamper evident safeguarding assembly for safeguarding of the injection mold having an electronic circuit interconnected to the at least one sensor with an indirect disrupting device to trigger an indicator or alarm to alert the user during the operation of the injection mold, as disclosed by Starkey,
would also include the elements of the tamper detection and response system of Lillestolen with its storage member configured to store, at least temporarily, sensor data and/or values derived from it received from at least one sensor, including a pressure sensor, and having at least one processor having electronic circuitry in a housing attached and/or incorporated in the injection mold of Starkey and configured to detect a critical condition of the injection mold of Starkey, based on the data stored in memory and would apply the disrupting device of Lillestolen to directly disrupt the operation of the injection mold of Starkey.
One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine this teaching with the disclosure of Starkey because it can be important to determine when a tamper condition exists so that sensitive stored program data can be destroyed (i.e. removed, erased, wiped, disrupted) (paragraph [0029]).
However, Lillestolen does not disclose the presence of a melt or cavity pressure sensor.
Catoen teaches an injection molding system with a sensor unit array (abs) used in determining the cycle count of one or more mold components (paragraph [0024]). These sensors include a number of pressure sensor units (paragraph [0024]) including a cavity pressure sensor and a melt pressure sensor (Fig. 6 paragraph [0034] cavity pressure sensor – 192b and a pressures sensor unit can be disposed elsewhere in the melt stream). Additionally, a temperature sensor is also a part of the sensor array (paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill to have modified the combination of Starkey/Lillestolen with the teachings of Catoen whereby an injection mold comprises at least one sensor that is at least one of a melt or cavity pressure sensor in addition to a temperature sensor by which sensors a critical condition is determined based on at least partially data stored in at least one memory The one with ordinary skill would consider this feature to be advantageous because these pressure sensors for cavity and melt are indicators of prevailing conditions within an injection molding assembly and can detect a critical condition within the injection mold (paragraph [0005]).
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 WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights