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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a duplicate of claim 3. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al. (7,494,609) in view of Hirose (2015/0197052), or over Hirose (2015/0197052) in view of Tsuji et al. (7,494,609) and further in view of Yoshida et al. (2009/0246306).
Tsuji et al. discloses a clamping system 1 comprising:
two mold platens 3, 4;
a plurality of tie bars 7 with ball screw mechanisms 7a connecting the mold platens 3, 4 to each other;
a plurality of clamping cylinders 9 respectively provided on the plurality of ball screw mechanisms and configured to respectively drive the ball screw mechanisms 7, 7a; and
a control unit 70, 71 configured to independently control the clamping cylinders 9 – col. 1 lines 16-20 and col. 9, lines 9-21, wherein the control unit 70 determines the clamping force based on the pressures detected by the pressure sensors 85 and compares the positions of the pistons 8 detected by the position sensors 90; wherein
each of the screw bars 7a is connect to a half nut 20 with a proximity sensor 95 to detect the movement of the tie bar 7 in axial direction; wherein
the main control part 71 performs various processing for overall control of the clamping system 1, such as at the time of the clamping, it controls the direction control valves DCV based on signals from the die information setting part 73, the encoders 80, the pressure sensors 85, etc.; wherein
the control unit 70 determines whether or not the clamping force has reached a previously determined value based on the pressures detected by the pressure sensors 85, and to compare the positions of the pistons 8 stored previously and presently detected by the position sensors 90 to determine the movements of the pistons 8 are within the permissible value or not. The axial positions pistons 8 is directly corresponding to the axial force for rotating the tie bars 7, therefore, by control the axial force acting on the pistons 8, the axial positions of the tie bars in Tsuji are monitored and controlled.
However, Tsuji et al. fails to disclose that the plurality of axial force setting values being set in the control device based on a constraint condition such as a maximum axial force setting value, or a range of differences between the maximum axial force setting value and each of other axial force setting values is equal to or smaller than an allowable difference.
Hirose discloses a mold clamping force setting device and method for injection molding machine, comprising a mold clamping part Mc that closes a mold 40 based on a set mold clamping force to generate a mold clamping force and an injection part 1 that injects molten resin 4 into the mold 40a-b, wherein the set mold clamping force is to prevent burr due to insufficient mold clamping force or low product quality due to poor outgassing or the mold life is shortened due to excess mold clamping force applied to the mold. The mold clamping force setting device and method, as shown in Figures 6-8 and paragraphs [0012]-[0022] and [0049]-[0052], include:
a plurality of mold clamping force detecting sensors 41 configured to detect mold clamping forces in different positions on a mold clamping part Mc;
a maximum mold clamping force increase amount calculation part configured to perform injection with an optional set mold clamping force and obtain a maximum mold clamping force increase amount being the difference between the mold clamping forces, generated when the mold is closed, that have been detected by the mold clamping force detecting parts CH1-4 and a maximum mold clamping force value during injection, generated when molten resin is injected into the mold 40a-b, for each of the mold clamping force detecting sensors 41;
a storing part configured to store therein mold clamping forces generated when the mold is closed and the corresponding maximum mold clamping force increase amounts, for each of the mold clamping force detecting sensors;
an extracting part configured to extract two or more pairs of the set mold clamping force and the maximum mold clamping force increase amount that are different in maximum mold clamping force increase amount and have a set mold clamping forces not enough to open the mold, in at least one of the mold clamping force detecting parts;
a relational expression calculation part configured to, for the mold clamping force detecting part for which the two or more pairs of the set mold clamping force and the maximum mold clamping force increase amount are extracted by the extracting part, obtain a relational expression indicating a maximum mold clamping force increase amount with respect to a set mold clamping force from the two or more pairs as a relational expression of the mold clamping force detecting part;
a mold clamping force calculation part configured to, for the mold clamping force detecting parts for which the relational expressions therefore are obtained by the relational expression calculation part, perform injection with a set mold clamping force smaller than the set mold clamping forces included in the two or more pairs, extracted in association with the mold clamping force detecting part, calculate the maximum mold clamping force increase amount, and obtain a set clamping force when the maximum mold clamping force increase amount exceeds a predetermined threshold determined based on the relational expression of the mold clamping force detecting part – see [0059]; and
a mold clamping force setting part configured to set a set mold clamping force immediately before the set mold clamping force obtained by the mold clamping force calculation part to a required minimum mold clamping force that does not open the mold – see [0060].
However, Hirose fails to disclose that each of the tie bars 32 for moving mold platen 30 toward and away from the fixed platen 33 are individually and independently controllable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace Tsuji’s cylinder 9 with servo motors as taught by Hirose – M5 in order to improve the rotation of the tie bars and to provide Tsuji with the steps of determine and controlling the axial force setting values relative to the maximum axial force setting values as taught by Hirose in order to prevent excess mold clamping force applied to the mold and to prevent immature wear and tear to the mold.
Alternatively, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hirose with a plurality of servo motors for the corresponding multiple tie bars as taught by Tsuji so that the movement of each of the tie bars can individually controlled, which would improve the clamping of the mold platens.
In regarding to the newly added limitations that the axial force setting values for at least two of the plurality of screw mechanism are different from each other. Tsuji further disclosed that a plurality of ball screws for moving the movable die plate along the tie bars and individually controlling the drive operations of the plurality of ball screws so as to perform the clamping while maintaining the degree of parallelism between the die plates – see col. 1, lines 16-23 or col. 9, lines 9-17. Because the operations of the ball screws are individually controlled, they are capable to be set at different axial force values. Tsuji also discloses that the control unit 70 could end the processing while alerting the worker of the presence of a persistent factor – col 8, lines 57-60.
Alternatively, Yoshida et al. discloses an injection apparatus and a a plurality of shafts 23, 24, the injection apparatus includes: a plurality of axial force detection parts 27, 28 configured to detect an axial force of each of the shafts 23, 24; and a control part 40 configured to compare detection values detected by the axial force detection parts 27, 28, the control part 40 being configured to calculate an amount of operation of a position of a shaft to be operated in the plurality of the shafts 23, 24 based on a difference of the axial forces of the shafts 23, 24 indicated by the detection values so as to correct the position, the control part 40 being configured to cancel the difference of the axial forces, wherein the control process comprises the steps of determine a designated standard value by determining and comparing difference of the axial forces M of the first axial force and S of the second axial force, namely "axial force M--axial force S" or "axial force S--axial force M" is within an upper limit – maximum axial force setting value or a lower limit – minimum axial force setting value, [0056]-[0080] and Figs. 4-5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsuji et al. by controlling the clamping force of the mold by individually controlling the axial force of each of the screw shafts based on an upper limit and a lower limit of each of the axial force of screw shafts as taught by Yoshida et al. so that the axial shaft of each of the shafts can be detected with high precision under a simple structure and it is possible to adjust the difference of the axial forces of the shafts if the difference occurs and keep the balance of loads applied to the shafts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In regarding to the newly added limitation, although the patentability of apparatus claims are determined based on what the apparatus is, not what it does, the combination of Tsuji, Hirose and Yoshida is capable of determine a constrain condition by comparing an axial force setting value with a maximum axial force setting values of the screw shafts – see Figs. 4-5, so that the axial shaft of each of the shafts can be detected with high precision and it is possible to adjust the difference of the axial forces of the shafts if the difference occurs and keep the balance of loads applied to the shafts.
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 Thu-Khanh T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/Thu Khanh T. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743