Detailed Office Action
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2-3 are cancelled. Claim 1 is 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 arguments that claim 1 amendments overcome the cited arts are not persuasive. Since these are new amendments, they are addressed in their relevant rejection sections below.
Claim Interpretation
Instant claim 1 recites 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.
Claim 1 is 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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRAOKA. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claim.
Regarding claim 1, HIRAOKA discloses An injection molding machine {[FIG. 1]} comprising:
a stationary platen {[FIG. 1] 21 is the fixed or stationary platen};
a toggle mechanism that moves a movable platen of the injection molding machine with respect to the stationary platen {[FIG. 1] 24 indicates part of the toggle mechanism that moves 23 or the movable platen with respect to 21},
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 that are connection mechanisms and are connected via bars or link members 24, note 28 is the crosshead and affects the movement of the moving platen};
a mold clamping motor that operates the toggle mechanism {[FIG. 1] note 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 {[Fig. 1] note strain sensor or detector 11 that is on link member 24, [0004]/[0011]};
a control unit that instructs the mold clamping motor to start a depressurizing process after a mold clamping process is completed {[0011] note control unit, note that the mold has to be opened when injection is finished, thus control unit opens or depressurizes the mold},
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 the mold after injection is done and the process of retreating back the movable platen 23 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 26, thus the crosshead has these positions of the instant of depressurizing to complete opening};
an acquisition unit that acquires the value from the detector {[0011]};
a determination unit that determines whether or not wear has occurred in the link member or one of the plurality of connection mechanisms {[0004], [0011], [0015] note elastic deformation and distortion is the wear}.
and an output unit that outputs a determination result by the determination unit {[0016] note output signal}.
HIRAOKA, however, is silent on that the acquisition occurs during a depressurizing process. HIAKOMA acquires these parameters during clamping process or closing process or pressurization {[0011]}.
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 measurement during opening or depressurizing process. One would have been motivated to do so to obtain more data and accurately determine the stress values.
Note that in addition to compression, the deformation or distortion of components can also occur during stretching of these components. Stretching occurs during mold opening or the depressurizing process. Therefore, there is a motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to continue monitoring strain during the depressurizing process as well, since the strain monitor is connected to the components at all times both during clamping and during opening of the mold {[0011] note the strain sensor is bolted and always present}. Obtaining additional data will be an obvious motivation for this modification.
Conclusion
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