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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 1 ) as being anticipated by Takeshi et al . (JP 2021073111 A) relied on machine translation. As per claim 1, Takeshi et al. teach An injection molding machine (injection molding machine 11, para 15) comprising: a controller (a control device, 29, para 17) ; components that are attachable to and detachable (a movable portion such a movable platen 28 , para 16 ) from the injection molding machine; and a storage medium that stores history information for each of the components (The history of the abnormality notification of the injection molding machine 11 is being stored in the storage device of the injection molding machine11 or in the storage unit of the central control device 14, para 30) wherein, in a case where the controller detects a change in attachment/detachment of a first component, the controller adds information indicating that the first component has been replaced to the history information (The replacement date, replacement time of the component, and the numerical value of the sensor at the time of replacement are stored in the storage unit. The replacement history of the component can be recognized at the display, para 34) , outputs an indication of initialization of the history information of the first component, or initializes the history information of the first component (the integrated value N is reset to 0 when the component is replaced, para 34) . As per claim 2, Takeshi et al. te a ch The injection molding machine (injection molding machine 11, para 15) according to claim 1, wherein the storage medium (Storage device in the injection molding machine, storage unit in the central storage device, para 30) includes, as the history information of the component (The conversion time of the of the plurality of components are stored in the storage unit, para 34) , replacement history information that holds a history of replacement of the first component (the integrated value N reset to 0 when the component is being replaced , para 34) and load history information that holds a load generated in the first component by an operation of the injection molding machine (at the time of the shipment of the injection molding machine 11, the maintenance value M changes by the replacement of the respective parts, para 34) , and in a case where the controller detects a change (the replacement of the component, para 34 ) in attachment/detachment of the first component (Plurality of components attached to the injection molding machine and stored in the storage unit, para 34) , or outputs an indication of initialization of the history information of the first component (The integrated value N such as conversion time or the number of times of conversion is counted for each plurality of components are stored in the storage unit, para 34) , the controller adds information indicating that the first component has been replaced to the replacement history information, and performs initialization of the load history information of the first component (the maintenance value M becomes different by the replacement o f the respective parts. Various date such as replacement date, replacement time of the components and the numerical values of the sensor at the time of the replacement automatically stored in the storage device or storage unit 14 and the replacement history of the components being recognized by the display. Para 34 ) . As per claim 3, Takeshi et al. teach The injection molding machine ( injection molding machine 11, para 15) according to claim 2, wherein the controller updates the load history information with a value based on an operation time (Operating time is being used as integrated value N,1 hour = 1, para 32 ) or on an energization time in the injection molding machine as information indicating a load of the component (The load of each components increases when the injection molding machine is being used under a high acceleration or use a recycled material, and the injection molding machine becomes overloaded, para 32) As per claim 4, Takeshi et al. teach The injection molding machine ( injection molding machine 11, para 15) according to claim 3, wherein the controller (a control device, 29, para 17) sets a value obtained (The converted values V1 and the unsteady values V, para 35) by correcting the operation time or the energization time in the injection molding machine based on an operation status of the component as the information indicating the load of the component( As the unsteady values V1 are detected, the conversion values V is being added to the maintenance M and after fifth detection, first message A is notified, para 35) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al. (JP 2021073111 A) relied on machine translation , in view of Hirotomo ( JP 63130327 A ) relied on machine translation. As per claim 5, a lthough Takeshi teaches that a component within the injection molding machine can be replaced (Pars. 34, 73), it does not appear to teach of first identification information of the component in the storage medium of the component, second identification information of the component in a storage medium of the injection molding machine, and a controller to detect whether the first and second identification information match when the component is replaced (attached/detached). In the same field of endeavor , Hirotomo teaches : wherein a first component includes a storage medium that stores first identification information for identifying the first component (P. 2, second paragraph – “it is also know n to provide an identification member consisting of a label on the mold so that the mold can be always reliably mounted without causing misrecognition at the time of mold replacement.”) a storage medium provided in the injection molding machine stores second identification information for identifying the first component (P. 3, second paragraph – “the first light device has an identification sensor for identifying the identification portion of the replacement work member, and a comparison circuit for comparing the output of the control circuit with the output of the identification sensor to confirm the replacement work member.” This clearly teaches that there is at least a first and second identification information – one within the actual component, and one within the system – in order to compare the (two) identification information.) , and a controller that detects whether or not the first identification information matches the second identification information as the change in attachment/detachment of the first component ( As stated above, on P. 3, Hirotomo teaches that the identification part is used for confirming the working member, and is used for reading the operation data of the replacing working member at the off-line state. It further teaches that a comparison circuit can confirm the replacement work member. The fact that the comparison circuit can compare the identification of the work member means it would have to compare it with some type of known information as the second identification member ). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the teachings of Hirotomo into the system taught by Takeshi above. This would have been obvious because both Takeshi et al. and Hirotomo teach of an injection molding machine where components within the injection molding machine can be replaced. By adding Hirotomo ’s teaching of including identification of the components to be replaced, and comparing that identification information, assures that the component being replaced will be reliably mounted without misrecognition (See P . 2 of Hirotomo). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rokeya Alam whose telephone number is (571) 27 2 -0083. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am - 4:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Scott Baderman can be reached at telephone number (571-272-3644). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /ROKEYA SHAWALI ALAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2118 /SCOTT T BADERMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118