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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: display unit in claims 1, 3 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morimura, US Patent Application Publication no. 2004/0044434.
a display unit configured to display working time information as information obtained by collecting information on working data of a factory or a production line including an injection molding machine for a predetermined period [injection molding machine quality information or other various history information received from various injection molding machine sensors is collected by a managing program and displayed on a display apparatus, paragraphs 0040, 0045 and 0046],
wherein the display unit displays, as the working time information, two or more continuous pieces of information in a band shape with time length directions aligned among first information as information on a planned stop time of the injection molding machine and second information as information on a preparation time of the injection molding machine or information on an abnormal stop time of the injection molding machine, third information as time information on a performance loss of the injection molding machine, fourth information as time information on a defect loss of the injection molding machine, and fifth information as information on a value working time of the injection molding machine [a 24-hour operations status graph displays operations conditions of the injection molding machine for the past 24 hours with color codes corresponding to operation status types including “normal stop (standby)” and “stop due to occurrence of abnormality”, elements 22-3 in Figure 2 and 23-2 in Figure 3 and paragraphs 0054 and 0060. Examiner notes that the claim require two or more of the claimed pieces of information to be displayed in a band shape with time length directions aligned. Morimura, as described above, discloses displaying planned stop time of the injection molding machine and abnormal stop time of the injection molding machine].
Regarding claim 2, Morimura further discloses that the working time information includes information on working data of the injection molding machine when the injection molding machine produces an identified molded item, and the first information includes information on a time during which the injection molding machine produces a molded item other than the identified molded item [item display part 23-4 in Figure 3 indicates a different color when condition of injection or mold-opening has changed, paragraph 0062].
Regarding claim 5, Morimura further discloses that the predetermined period is a period represented by any unit of year, month, day, time, minute, and second [a 24-hour operations status graph displays operations conditions of the injection molding machine for the past 24 hours with color codes corresponding to operation status types including “normal stop (standby)” and “stop due to occurrence of abnormality”, elements 22-3 in Figure 2 and 23-2 in Figure 3 and paragraphs 0054 and 0060].
Regarding claim 6, Morimura further discloses that the predetermined period is a period represented by a time related to an order reception of a molded item, or a period represented by a production unit of the molded item [the 24 hour time period aligns with the item display part 23-4 in Figure 3 indicates a different color when condition of injection or mold-opening has changed, paragraph 0062].
Regarding claim 7, Morimura further discloses that the predetermined period is represented by a time related to an order reception of the molded item, and the predetermined period is (1) a period from an order reception date to a shipping delivery date, or (2) a period from an order reception date to a predetermined date after the order reception date [the 24 hour time period aligns with the item display part 23-4 in Figure 3 indicates a different color when condition of injection or mold-opening has changed, paragraph 0062].
Regarding claim 8, Morimura further discloses that the display unit displays, in a band shape with time length directions aligned, information on an operation time of the injection molding machine, information on a load time of the injection molding machine, information on a working time of the injection molding machine, and information on a net working time of the injection molding machine [a 24-hour operations status graph displays operations conditions of the injection molding machine for the past 24 hours with color codes corresponding to operation status types including “operation”, “normal stop (standby)”, “stop due to occurrence of abnormality” and “electric power shut off”, elements 22-3 in Figure 2 and 23-2 in Figure 3 and paragraphs 0054 and 0060. Examiner notes that operation time is corresponds to the 24-hour period, the load time corresponds to the “operation” status, the working time corresponds to the difference between the “operation” time and the “stop due to occurrence of abnormality” time and the net working time corresponds to the difference between the “operation” time and the “normal stop (standby)” time].
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimura, US Patent Application Publication no. 2004/0044434 and Ohigashi et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2023/0384759 [Ohigashi], in view of Koyama, US Patent Application Publication no. 2015/0012119.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Morimura discloses an injection molding machine management system comprising:
a display unit configured to display information obtained by collecting information on working data of an injection molding unit including an injection molding machine for a predetermined period [injection molding machine quality information or other various history information received from various injection molding machine sensors is collected by a managing program and displayed on a display apparatus, paragraphs 0040, 0045 and 0046],
wherein the display unit displays, in a band shape with time length directions aligned, information on a planned stop time of the injection molding unit and information on a preparation time of the injection molding machine or information on an abnormal stop time of the injection molding machine [a 24-hour operations status graph displays operations conditions of the injection molding machine for the past 24 hours with color codes corresponding to operation status types including “normal stop (standby)” and “stop due to occurrence of abnormality”, elements 22-3 in Figure 2 and 23-2 in Figure 3 and paragraphs 0054 and 0060].
Morimura does not disclose monitoring and displaying time information on a performance loss of the injection molding machine, time information on a defect loss of the injection molding machine and information on a value working time of the injection molding machine. Like Morimura, Ohigashi discloses a system for monitoring operation status of an injection molding machine. Ohigashi further discloses monitoring performance loss, defect loss and value working time of an injection molding machine [setup loss time, defect loss time and the difference between operating time and defect loss time, Figure 1 and paragraphs 0055-0059]. Since it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor performance loss, defect loss and value working time of injection molding machines, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Ohigashi teachings to Morimura by additionally monitoring and displaying injection molding machine performance loss, defect loss and value working time in order to allow for a more comprehensive representation of the operational efficiency of the injection molding machine.
Morimura and Ohigashi do not disclose monitoring and displaying operational statuses of peripheral devices in the injection molding system. Like Morimura and Ohigashi, Koyama discloses monitoring operation status of injection molding machines. Koyama further discloses monitoring the operation status of peripheral devices in the injection molding system, such as robots that conduct work including workpiece changes and carriers that carry workpieces [paragraphs 0004 and 0026-0027]. Since it was known in the art before the effective filing date to monitor operation statuses of peripheral devices in addition to injection molding machines, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Koyama teachings to Morimura and Ohigashi by monitoring and displaying operation status metrics for peripheral devices in along with injection molding machines in order to allow for a more comprehensive representation of operational efficiency for the entire injection molding system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hano, US Patent Application Publication no. 2008/0184114 discloses monitoring and displaying operation statuses of injection molding machines over predetermined time periods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL B YANCHUS III whose telephone number is (571)272-3678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached at (571) 272-3667. 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.
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 January 9, 2026