Detailed Office Action
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on 7/21/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2-3 are cancelled. New claims 4-6 are added. Claims 1 and 4-6 are pending.
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 Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are acknowledged. These amendments overcome the primary art of HIRAOKA. The 35 USC 103 rejection over HIRAOKA is withdrawn. However, the amendments do not overcome the primary art of NOMA. The rejection over NOMA is maintained. Since these are new amendments, they are addressed in their relevant rejection sections below.
Claim Interpretation
Instant claims recite the limitations “acquisition unit”, “detection unit”, “link member”, “toggle mechanism”, “connection mechanism”, and “determination unit”. The Examiner notes that these limitations are well known in the art and, therefore, are not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over NOMA (US-2003/0089179), hereinafter NOMA, as evidenced by HIRAOKA (JP-09254218-A and its English translation), hereinafter HIRAOKA. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claim.
Regarding claim 1, NOMA discloses An injection molding machine {[FIG. 1]} comprising:
A stationary platen {[FIG. 1] 12R is the stationary platen};
a toggle mechanism that moves a movable platen of the injection molding machine with respect to the stationary platen {[FIG. 1] 30 is the toggle mechanism that moves 12L or the movable platen},
the toggle mechanism including a plurality of link members, a plurality of connection mechanisms, and a crosshead configured to move in a direction in which the movable platen moves with respect to the stationary platen {[FIG. 1] note the plurality of circles in 30 that are connection mechanisms and are connected via bars or link members, [0052] note cross-head links 34 that constitute the cross head and its moves to move the moving platen};
a mold clamping motor that operates the toggle mechanism {[FIG. 1] note hydraulic cylinder 27 has to be connected to a motor or mold clamping motor as evidenced by HIRAOKA (see figure 1, motor 26)};
a detector that measures a value indicating one of an amount of strain, a rate of change of the amount of strain, or an acceleration generated in one of the plurality of link members, the detector being provided in the link member {[0011] note strain gauge or detector 40 that is attached to the toggle mechanism, [FIG. 2(2)] note 40 is on the link member 38};
a control unit that instructs the mold clamping motor to start a depressurizing process after a mold clamping process is completed {[FIG. 1] note control circuit, [0051] note automatic movement of toggling mechanism that indicates control of opening and closing the mold, note the depressurizing is the opening after the injection is done},
the depressurizing process being a process in which the mold clamping motor is driven to cause the crosshead to retreat from a mold clamping position, at which the crosshead is located upon completion of the mold clamping process, to a mold opening start position at which a mold opening process starts {[FIG. 1] note as explained above the depressurizing is the moment of opening of the mold after injection is done and the process of retreating back the movable platen 12L is done by the crosshead as explained above, therefore all the movements of the moving platen from depressurizing to the complete opening is the result of the crosshead movement effected by the motor, thus the crosshead has these positions of the instant of depressurizing to complete opening};
an acquisition unit that acquires the value in the depressurizing process from the detector {[0025]-[0026] note comparing and measurement of stress, which is the value, note the link in the toggle mechanism, [0068] note measuring during mold opening which is the depressurizing process, [0026] note using the strain detector to determine the stretch of toggle links; stretch, as opposed to compression, indicates values of stress (or strain) when the mold is being opened by the toggle mechanism (the depressurizing process), [FIG. 8] negative values indicates the stretch measurements, [0073] note detecting the stress (or strain) and that the problem with mold opening can be sensed; mold opening clearly refers to the depressurizing process};
a determination unit that determines whether or not wear has occurred in the link member or one of the plurality of connection mechanisms {[0029] note comparing to the maximum value or the threshold value, [0043] note the stress judging means that is the determination unit, [abstract] note abrasion is the wear, [0068] note maintenance of the link when abrasion is determined},
and determines that wear has occurred in response to the value acquired during the depressurizing process indicating that, while a mold clamping force decreases, an absolute value of the amount of strain increases, a rate of change of the amount of strain indicates that the amount of strain is increasing or an acceleration is generated in the link member {[0026] note reference to maintenance indicating that it has been determined that wear has occurred, [0025] note change in stress that indicates measuring rate of change, [0076] note detecting increase in change of this rate};
and an output unit that outputs a determination result by the determination unit {[FIG. 1] note output circuit}.
In case that it is argued that [0068]/[FIG.8]/[0026]/[0073] of NOMA only teaches measuring during clamping or pressurizing process, at the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have also performed such measurements during opening or depressurizing process. One would have been motivated to do so to obtain more data and accurately determine the stress values.
Regarding claim 4, NOMA discloses wherein the value indicates the rate of change of the amount of strain, and the determination unit determines that wear has occurred in response to rate of change of the amount of strain indicating that the amount of strain increases while the mold clamping force decreases during the depressurizing process {[0076] note the teaching that in most cases this is an increase in the change, also see claim 1 above for strain and the determination that wear has occurred}.
Regarding claim 5, NOMA discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of connection mechanisms includes a bushing fitted into a connection hole of the link member and having an inner sliding surface, and a connection pin in contact with the inner sliding surface of the bushing, the increase in the amount of strain or the acceleration generated in the link member being caused by friction between the inner sliding surface of the bushing and the connection pin due to wear of the bushing {[0024] note bearing and pins that are the bushing and connection pins, [0076] note shortage of lubricating oil indicates increase in friction that is detected and thus an increase in strain is detected due to this increase in friction}.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOMA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SUGAHARA (US-2021/0060841), hereinafter SUGAHARA.
Regarding claim 6, NOMA discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. NOMA, however, is silent detecting acceleration generation in the link member in order to determine wear.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to injection molding machine, SUGAHARA discloses wherein the value indicates the acceleration, and the determination unit determines that wear has occurred in response to acceleration being generated in the link member during the depressurizing process {[0059] note that as indicated in the instant specification [0152] acceleration measurement is vibration measurement}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of SUGAHARA in the machine of NOMA and have added a vibration or acceleration sensor to the machine. One would have been motivated to do so to obtain more data and accurately determine the onset of wear in the system.
The Examiner notes that the acceleration sensor of SUGAHAR for determination of wear is connected to a belt and not the link member. However, since SUGAHARA clearly teaches determination of wear in a part, and knowing that NOMA’s objective is to determine the wear in the link member, an artisan would have found it obvious to have attached this sensor to the link member of NOMA.
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 S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights