DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 04/08/2026, claims 1-18 and 21-22 are pending. Claims 1, 3-4, 15-16, and 21-22 are currently amended. Claims 19-20 are canceled, and no claim is newly added. Claims 8-14 are withdrawn. Claims 1-7, 15-18, and 21-22 are considered in this Office 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:
“a material-conveying drive control module of a machine control module” (claim 1 lines 4-6)
“a closing unit control module of the machine control module” (claim 1 lines 9-11)
“a sensor control module of the machine control module” (claim 1 lines 17-26).
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 § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 15-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a material-conveying drive control module” (claim 1 lines 4-6), “a closing unit control module” (claim 1 lines 9-11), and “a sensor control module” (claim 1 lines 17-26) with associated functions. Instant Specification provides the recited functions of the generic unit control module (see Instant Specification: [0022, 0033, 0035, 0045, 0047] and fig. 1, as published in US 20240262024 A1) but does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient details (e.g., corresponding structure and algorithm) other than the recited functions. Thus, a mere restatement of the function in the Instant Specification without more descriptions of means that accomplish the function does not provide adequate written description.
Claims 2-7, 15-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being dependent from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 15-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “a material-conveying drive control module” (claim 1 lines 4-6), “a closing unit control module” (claim 1 lines 9-11), and “a sensor control module” (claim 1 lines 17-26) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Instant Specification discloses functions of the respective control units (see Instant Specification: [0032, 0033, 0035, 0045, 0047] and fig. 1, as published in US 20240262024 A1). However, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, or the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-7, 15-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 1.
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.
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 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.
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions.
The limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details.
The limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) for further details.
Claims 1-6, 15-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stiefel (US 20190389111 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stiefel teaches an injection molding machine (fig. 1 and abstract, [0022]: injection molding machine 100) including:
a plasticizing unit (injection unit 102) having a plasticizing cylinder (barrel 110) and a material-conveying device (screw 112) that is movable in the plasticizing cylinder and powered by a material-conveying drive (screw drive, e.g., a servo motor) (fig. 1 and [0022-0026], [0039]);
a material-conveying drive control module of a machine control module (controller 140 with screw control 126) coupled with the material-conveying drive, the material-conveying drive control module being designed to control operating parameters of the material-conveying drive ([0032-0033]: controller 140 generates a signal transmitted to screw control 126, and the controller 140 control any number of characteristics of the machine such as, e.g., injection pressure (by controlling the screw control 126 to advance the screw 112 at a rate which maintains a desired value corresponding to the molten plastic material 114 in the nozzle 116), inject forward time, screw recovery speed, and screw velocity);
a closing unit (press/claiming unit 124) having an injection molding tool (mold halves 125, 127) that is connected with an outlet nozzle (nozzle 116) of the plasticizing cylinder (fig. 1 and [0022-0026]);
a closing unit control module of the machine control module (controller 140) coupled with a closing unit drive of the closing unit, the closing unit control module being designed to control operating parameters of the closing unit drive ([0032-0033]: controller 140 generates a signal transmitted to screw control 126, and the controller 140 control any number of characteristics of the machine such as, e.g., clamp closing and/or opening speeds, overall cycle time, and ejection time);
one or more dielectric or acoustic sensors (sensors 128, 129) disposed in the cavity of the injection molding tool or close to the cavity of the injection molding tool ([0038]: the sensors 128, 129 are any type of pressure sensors (e.g., gauge pressure sensors, differential pressure sensors, force collector type sensors such as piezo resistive strain gauges, capacitive sensors1, resonant sensors2, thermal sensors, and/or electromagnetic sensors), and are disposed at the nozzle 116 and at a location inside, near the inside, or on the outer wall of the mold 118; [0027, 0029-0031]: any number of additional sensors capable of sensing any number of characteristics of the mold 118, the machine 100, and/or the molten plastic material 114 to detect its presence and/or condition in the mold cavity 122, may be used and placed at desired locations of the machine 100) and [the one or more dielectric or acoustic sensors being designed to determine the dielectric polarizability, the mobility of free loading carriers and/or acoustic material responses of a molding material in the cavity of the injection molding tool] (here, although Stiefel does not explicitly disclose the bracketed limitations, the limitations are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the capacitive sensors and/or the resonant sensors as having the equivalent structure of the claimed invention (“one or more dielectric or acoustic sensors”) thus anticipatory; See MPEP 2114); and
a sensor control module of the machine control module (controller 140) coupled with the one or more dielectric or acoustic sensor, the sensor control module being [designed to ascertain a time-dependent degree of crystallization and a time-dependent median temperature of the molding material in the cavity of the injection molding tool from the dielectric polarizability, the mobility of free loading carriers and/or the acoustic material responses determined by the dielectric or acoustic sensor(s) and, depending on the ascertained crystallization degree and the ascertained median temperature], the sensor control module being designed to actuate the material-conveying drive control module and/or the closing unit control module to adjust the operating parameters of the material-conveying drive and/or of the closing unit drive ([0032-0033]: controller 140 generates a signal transmitted to screw control 126, and the controller 140 control any number of characteristics of the machine such as, e.g., injection pressure (by controlling the screw control 126 to advance the screw 112 at a rate which maintains a desired value corresponding to the molten plastic material 114 in the nozzle 116), inject forward time, screw recovery speed, and screw velocity, clamp closing and/or opening speeds, overall cycle time, and ejection time, and the controller 140 may be connected to the sensors 128, 129; [0034-0035]: the controller 140 with several components such as software 141, hardware 142, input 143, output 144, and connection 145; [0031]: the sensor 129 generates a signal which is transmitted to an input of the controller 140, and any number of additional sensors may be used to sense and/or measure operating parameters; [0039]: the sensor 128 provides feedback to the controller 140 to determine whether adjustments should be made to the injection cycle; here, of note, although Stiefel does not explicitly disclose the bracketed limitations, the limitations are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the controller connected to and controlling the capacitive sensors and/or the resonant sensors, for example, upon appropriate data processing of the obtained signals, thus, the equivalent of the claimed element (“sensor control module”) is anticipatory, or the prior art element would be an obvious variant of the claimed element (“sensor control” which is not fully recited or disclosed its structure in the claim or in the Instant Specification); See MPEP 2114; Also, see above the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) and the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)).
Regarding claim 2, Stiefel teaches the injection molding machine according to claim 1, wherein the material-conveying drive is a screw drive and the material-conveying device is a screw shaft (fig. 1 and [0022-0026], [0039]), and wherein the operating parameters of the screw drive include a screw shaft momentum, a screw shaft rotation rate, an injection speed, an injection volume, a switchover point and/or an injection holding pressure (fig. 2, [0032]: injection pressures, pressure set points, screw recovery speed, screw velocity; [0038-0039]: the controller 140 may adjust the pressure exerted on the screw 112 in order to maintain the melt pressure curve 212 to the melt pressure setpoint 210; figs. 5, 6 and [0047-0055]: exemplary injection profile for controlling pressure during injection cycle, a melt pressure control profile 410; [0004]: screw velocity profile).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Stiefel teaches the injection molding machine according to claims 1 and 2, respectively, wherein the operating parameters of the closing unit drive include a tool closing force, an internal mold pressure and/or the tool heat capacity (fig. 2, [0032]: clamp closing and/or opening speeds, overall cycle time, and ejection time; [0038-0039]: the controller 140 may adjust the pressure exerted on the screw 112 in order to maintain the melt pressure curve 212 to the melt pressure setpoint 210; figs. 5, 6 and [0047-0055]: exemplary injection profile for controlling pressure during injection cycle, a cavity pressure profile 420).
Regarding claims 4, 16, and 21-22, Stiefel teaches the injection molding machine according to claim 1, 2, or 4, respectively, wherein the molding material in the cavity of the injection molding tool comprises at least 1 vol % recyclate material (claim 4), at least 15 vol % of recyclate material (claim 16), or at least 25 vol % of recyclated material (claim 22), or the recyclate material is a pre-consumer recyclate material or post-consumer recyclate material (claim 21) (of note, the limitation is directed to articles worked upon the claimed injection molding machine and does not effect the structure of the claimed apparatus, see MPEP 2115).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Stiefel teaches the injection molding machine according to claims 1 and 2, respectively, further including: one or more temperature sensors, which are disposed in the cavity of the injection molding tool, close to the cavity of the injection molding tool and/or on the plasticizing cylinder (fig. 1 and [0038]: thermal sensors; [0027, 0029, 0031]: any number of additional sensors capable of sensing any number of characteristics of the mold 118 and/or the machine 100 may be used and placed at desired locations of the machine 100).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Stiefel teaches the injection molding machine according to claims 1 and 2, respectively, further including: one or more pressure sensors, which are disposed in the cavity of the injection molding tool, close to the cavity of the injection molding tool and/or on the plasticizing cylinder (fig. 1 and [0038]: gauge pressure sensors, differential pressure sensors; [0027, 0029, 0031]: any number of additional sensors capable of sensing any number of characteristics of the mold 118 and/or the machine 100 may be used and placed at desired locations of the machine 100).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiefel (US 20190389111 A1) in view of Inoue (JP S63236616 A).
Regarding claim 7, Stiefel teaches the injection molding machine according to claim 6, but does not specifically teach that the one or more pressure sensors include differential thermal analysis sensors.
Inoue teaches an improvement in a resin molding device such as injection molding ([0001]). The injection molding machine comprises temperature sensor 24, pressure sensor 26, and differential thermal analysis unit 39 to control the mold temperature and the pressure in the cavity in such a way that the actual molding conditions coincide with the above described ideal change with time (abstract).
In the same filed of endeavor, both Stiefel and Inoue teach an injection molding machine/method in use of monitoring sensors (Stiefel: abstract; Inoue: abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the sensors including pressure sensors of Stiefel to further include a known sensor of a differential analysis unit as taught by Inoue in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of monitoring thermal transitions or phase changes of an injection material in a plasticizing unit and/or in a mold cavity under varying pressures so as to perform injection molding process with improved quality control (Inoue: derived from abstract; Stiefel: [0027, 0038]).
Alternatively, claims 1-6, 15-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiefel (US 20190389111 A1) in view of Kuerten (DE 19834797 A1) and Mijovic (“Monitoring Crystallization by Dielectric Spectroscopy” Dielectrics Newsletter, issue April 1998; available at https://novocontrol.de/newsletter/DNL09.PDF).
Alternatively, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiefel (US 20190389111 A1), Kuerten (DE 19834797 A1), and Mijovic (“Monitoring Crystallization by Dielectric Spectroscopy” Dielectrics Newsletter, issue April 1998; available at https://novocontrol.de/newsletter/DNL09.PDF) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Inoue (JP S63236616 A)
Regarding claim 1, alternatively, Stiefel teaches an injection molding machine as recited in claim 1 (see above, the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection of claim 1), but does not specifically teach the bracketed functional limitations as presented above - i.e., (A) one or more dielectric or acoustic sensors are [designed to determine the dielectric polarizability, the mobility of free loading carriers and/or acoustic material responses of a molding material in the cavity of the injection molding tool], and (B) a sensor control module of the machine control module is [designed to ascertain a time-dependent degree of crystallization and a time-dependent median temperature of the molding material in the cavity of the injection molding tool from the dielectric polarizability, the mobility of free loading carriers and/or the acoustic material responses determined by the dielectric or acoustic sensor(s) and, depending on the ascertained crystallization degree and the ascertained median temperature].
Kuerten teaches an injection molding machine and a method of controlling an injection molding process by continuously recording condition-specific material parameters with sensors ([0001, 0010]). Kuerten teaches that one or more dielectric or acoustic sensors are designed to determine the dielectric polarizability, the mobility of free loading carriers and/or acoustic material responses of a molding material in the cavity of the injection molding tool, and a sensor control module of the machine control module is [designed to ascertain a time-dependent degree of crystallization and a time-dependent median temperature of the molding material in the cavity of the injection molding tool from the dielectric polarizability, the mobility of free loading carriers and/or the acoustic material responses determined by the dielectric or acoustic sensor(s) and, depending on the ascertained crystallization degree and the ascertained median temperature] ([0010-0011]: sensors for measuring conductivity, dielectric constant, and dielectric loss of material and sound transmitting and receiving sensors, in the ultrasonic range, for measuring sound speed and attenuation; the physical relationships between the measured material qualities and the material properties are sought from the literatures, the material characteristics are continuously queried by a computer system during the process, the values are prepared in characteristic curve fields, displayed, compared with the programmed target characteristic curves, and in case of deviation, alarm is triggered or the process parameters are targeted to change; [0014-0019]: dielectric or ultrasound sensors 3 in system as shown in fig. 1; material properties driven by measuring the sound velocity and attenuation include molding compound temperature, viscosity, the temperature in the plasticizing part, the change in state of the plastic, viscosity of flow in cavity, degree of solidification of the material, determination of time for tool opening; of note, here, it is obvious that the material properties such as a temperature, a viscosity, and a phase change of molding compound would be measured at both at the injection channel and at the each cavity using the same type of the measured data, see [0017]; also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention that determined dielectric constant is driven from the measure/determined dielectric polarizability as the two terms are directly related by the Clausius-Mossotti equation3; moreover, it is implied or at least obvious that monitoring molding compound temperature, the temperature in the plasticizing part, and the change in state of the plastic, viscosity of flow in cavity, degree of solidification of the material is based on determining a time-dependent median temperature as the monitoring parameters are temperature itself or at least dependent on the temperature of the molding material).
In the same filed of endeavor, both Stiefel and Kuerten teach an injection molding machine/method in use of monitoring sensors (Stiefel: abstract; Kuerten: [0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the processing of measured quantity data obtained from dielectric and/or acoustic sensor of Stiefel to be driven into the quality data of the material characteristics and properties such as the temperature of the material, resulting in viscosity, the degree of solidification of the material, and the dielectric properties by a controller as taught by Kuerten in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of continuous monitoring and controlling of injection molding process for a high-degree automation and improved quality management (Kuerten: derived from [0001-0003, 0009]).
Upon the modification, modified Stiefel still does not specifically teach that the sensor control module is designed to ascertain a time-dependent degree of crystallization from the dielectric polarizability, the mobility of free loading carriers and/or the acoustic material responses determined by the one or more dielectric or acoustic sensors.
Mijovic teaches that dielectric spectroscopy is applicable to the studies of systems that undergo chemical and/or physical changes during the application of the electric field followed by dielectric measurements so as determine charge migration, dipole orientation, and to utilize them to monitor the development of crystallinity and morphology (page 1, 1st column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the dielectric or acoustic sensor and its control module of modified Stiefel to determine a charge migration and a dipole orientation and to utilize them to drive to monitor a level of crystallinity as taught by Mijovic in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful result of monitoring the development of crystallinity of molding/molded material so as to obtain the molded article in a desired structure (e.g., amorphous or ordered) having desired structural, thermal, and mechanical properties.
Regarding claims 2-6, 15-18 and 21-22, alternatively, modified Stiefel teaches all the claimed limitations (see above, the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections of respective claims).
Regarding claim 7, alternatively, modified Stiefel teaches all the claimed limitations (see above, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
RE: The 112(a) and the 112(b) rejections under the 112(f) interpretation
The Applicant argues (pages 8-10) that a person of ordinary skill in the art of injection molding machine design would understand that these control modules correspond to programmable industrial control units configured with appropriate software to perform the recited control functions, with the structurally identified hierarchy of machine control module 20 with each control module by reference numbers (21, 22, 23) as supported by Instant Specification, thus, the 112(a) and the 112(b) rejections under the 112(f) interpretation should be withdrawn.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument.
At first, the 112(f) interpretations of the limitations “a material-conveying drive control module” (claim 1 lines 4-6), “a closing unit control module” (claim 1 lines 9-11), and “a sensor control module” (claim 1 lines 17-26) are appropriate as (1) the term of “module” is a generic placeholder, (2) the term “module” is modified by functional languages, and (2) the term “module” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (see MPEP 2181).
Secondly, as alleged by the Applicant, the control unit may typically refer to a control unit (e.g., processor) and/or a software. However, it does not necessarily mean the control module is a processor or a controller. It could be a software as well, which is per se does not belong to a patentable subject matter without other structural elements. See MPEP 2106.03 and 2181. A box of machine control unit 20 with other boxed elements (21, 22, 23) in instant figure 1 does not fully support that the boxed elements are a structural element of a processor or a controller, not a software.
Thirdly, even if the Examiner assumes that the “control module” is a processor, and the modified functional languages are computer-implemented means-plus-function, still the Instant Specification does not provide an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function (see MPEP 2181. II. B). The respectively recited function of each control module is not something coextensive with a processor or a general purpose computer, which is limited to receiving, storing, and processing data. Especially, the functionality of the sensor control module as recited in claim 1 lines 18-23 including “ascertaining a time-dependent degree of crystallization and a time-dependent median of the molding material in the cavity of the injection molding tool from the dielectric polarizability, the mobility of free loading carriers and/or the acoustic material responses” requires a specific algorithm for how to perform the claimed specific computer function. However, Instant Specification does not disclose any algorithms for how to perform the specific functions to derive the end results, and thus, the 112(a) and the 112(b) rejections are appropriate.
After reconsideration, the 112(a) and the 112(b) under the 112(f) interpretation are maintained.
RE: The 102/103 and the 103 rejections of claim 1
The Applicant argues (see pages 10-17 of Remarks) that neither Stiefel nor modified Stiefel (Stiefel in view of Kuerten and Mijovic) discloses or suggest that the recited functions of the one or more dielectric or acoustic sensors” and/or “the sensor control module” as recited in the following underlined limitations:
“one or more dielectric or acoustic sensors disposed in a cavity of the injection molding tool or close to the cavity of the injection molding tool, (A) the one or more dielectric or acoustic sensors being designed to determine the dielectric polarizability, the mobility of free loading carriers and/or acoustic material responses of a molding material in the cavity of the injection molding tool; and
a sensor control module of the machine control module coupled with the one or more dielectric or acoustic sensors, (B) the sensor control module being designed to ascertain a time-dependent degree of crystallization and a time-dependent median temperature of the molding material in the cavity of the injection molding tool from the dielectric polarizability, the mobility of free loading carriers and/or the acoustic material responses determined by the one or more dielectric or acoustic sensors, and depending on the ascertained crystallization degree and the ascertained median temperature, the sensor control being designed to actuate the material-conveying device control and/or the closing unit control to adjust the operating parameters of the material-conveying drive and/or of the closing unit drive.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument.
At first, the Examiner wishes to point out to the Applicant that claims are directed towards an apparatus, and the underlined limitations are directed to a specified function without the recital of structure except “dielectric or acoustic sensor(s)” and “a control module.” Thus, the limitations directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114. In other words, if the prior art possesses the exact structural features required, the functional properties are presumed to be inherent in the prior art. Accordingly, Stiefel and modified Stiefel respectively teaches the structure of “dielectric or acoustic sensor(s)” and “a sensor control module,” and thus, the 102/103 and the 103 rejection of claim 1 are appropriate, regardless of the Applicant’s argument about a specific deficiency such as determining dielectric polarizability (pages 11-12), determining mobility of free loading carrier (page 12), ascertaining a time-dependent degree of crystallization (pages 13-14), and ascertaining median temperature from dielectric or acoustic data (page 14).
Moreover, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention designed to determine the specific parameters and designed to ascertain a specific properties based on the parameters, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific structure, circuitry, programs, software, or operational design of the one or more dielectric or acoustic sensors and its control module for performing the functional limitations (A) and (B)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, such features are not even disclosed in Instant Specification either. In the absence of further supporting structure in the instant disclosure, the Examiner cannot identify any additional structure, or equivalent structure, corresponding the claimed functional limitation. The burden is on Applicant to clearly disclose sufficient corresponding structure for performing the claimed function. The only structural requirements of the sensors and the sensor control module, performing the functional limitations (A) and (B), respectively, are a dielectric or an acoustic sensor and a control module, as recited in the claim. Stiefel or modified Stiefel teaches the equivalent structures, in case of the sensors also known as a capacitive sensor, a resonant sensor, an ultrasound sensor, or a dielectric spectroscopy.
Secondly, the Examiner wishes to point out to the applicant that the functional limitation(s) of the sensor control module is followed by “designed to” which is not the same as “configured to” or “programmed to.” Instant Specification does not discloses what kind of structure is a part of the control module. When it comes to a control unit, it can be either be a software or a hardware. Even when the control module is a hardware and the functional limitation(s) are followed by “designed to” (i.e., different from “configured to”), as long as the prior art teaches the same structure (e.g., a controller), then it is capable of performing the claimed functionality.
At last, of note, although the interpretations under intended uses or capabilities of the sensor and the sensor control module are appropriate, the Examiner addressed the 103 rejection of claim 1 in view of modified Stiefel, considering all the claimed functionality.
The Examiner’s opinion regarding the Applicant’s arguments not addressed above is as follows:
RE: Applicant’s argument (A) of the 102/103 rejection by Stiefel
The Applicant argues (see pages 11-12) that the 102 rejection by Stiefel is improper as the 102 rejection was made in view of Baumer to teach the capacitive sensor of Stiefel is not a dielectric sensor.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. The 102 rejection was made by Stiefel, as evidenced by Baumer. The capacitive sensor of Stiefel, which is capable of measuring a dielectric constant of a media (as evidenced by Baumer), does intrinsically meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a dielectric sensor” as the sensor measure a dielectric property either directly or indirectly.
RE: Applicant’s argument (B) of the 102/103 rejection by Stiefel
The Applicant argues (see page 12) that the 102 rejection by Stiefel is improper as Stiefel is silent about a sensor designed to determine a mobility of free loading carriers.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. Of note, the relevant limitations are recited as follows: “one or more dielectric or acoustic sensors … being designed to determine a dielectric polarizability, a mobility of free loading carriers and/or acoustic material responses of a molding material” (claim 1 lines 12-16). As highlighted in bold, the claim does not require the dielectric or acoustic sensor(s) to determine all the three properties. In addition, the capacitive sensor(s) and/or the resonant sensor(s) of Stiefel teaches the functional limitation (A) as presented above.
RE: Applicant’s arguments (C) and (D) of the 102/103 rejection by Stiefel
The Applicant argues (see pages 12-14) that the 102 rejection by Stiefel is improper as Stiefel does not teach or suggest a sensor control module to ascertain a time-dependent degree of crystallization and a time-dependent median temperature of the molding material from the dielectric polarizability, the mobility of free loading carriers and/or the acoustic material responses.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. A sensor control module “designed to” perform the functional limitation (B) directed to intended use or capability of a control unit as presented above. Of note, the limitation is not recited as “configured to” or “programmed to,” and Instant Specification does not support any further structural component(s), hardware, or software that would be required to perform the function.
RE: Applicant’s argument (A) of the 103 rejection by modified Stiefel
The Applicant argues (see page 15) that the 103 rejection by modified Stiefel is improper as Stiefel is silent about a sensor designed to determine a mobility of free loading carriers, and measuring a dielectric constant is not the same as determining a mobility of free loading carriers.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. Of note, the relevant limitations are recited as follows: “one or more dielectric or acoustic sensors … being designed to determine a dielectric polarizability, a mobility of free loading carriers and/or acoustic material responses of a molding material” (claim 1 lines 12-16). As highlighted in bold, the claim does not require the dielectric or acoustic sensor(s) to determine all the three properties.
Moreover, the sensor measuring for measuring conductivity, dielectric constant, and dielectric loss of material at least satisfies the dielectric sensor designed to determine a dielectric polarizability (Kuerten: [0010-0011]; see the 103 rejection of claim 1 for details), and the ultrasound sensor measuring the sound velocity and attenuation and its control system deriving material properties such as a molding compound temperature and other temperature-related properties satisfies the acoustic sensor and the sensor control module designed to determine a time-dependent median temperature based on the acoustic material response (Kuerten: [0014-0019]; see the 103 rejection of claim 1 for details). The only deficiency (i.e., “the sensor control module is designed to ascertain a time-dependent degree of crystallization from the dielectric polarizability, the mobility of free loading carriers and/or the acoustic material responses determined by the one or more dielectric or acoustic sensors”) is taught by Mijovic with the motivation to combine.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
After reconsideration, the 102 and the 103 rejections of claim 1 are maintained.
RE: The 102/103 and the 103 rejections of claims 4, 16, 21, and 22
The Applicant argues (see pages 17-18 of Remarks) that a molding material or a specific composition of the molding material should be considered as an integral component of the claimed injection molding machine as the composition, in particular the content of a recyclate material, introduces material property fluctuations that the claimed sensor-based control system is designed to address.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. The patentability of the injection molding machine cannot be based on the material used in the machine in its intended use. Variations in the composition of the molding material would result in corresponding variations in the material properties measured by a sensor in the injection molding machine. However, the inclusion of the material or the material-induced variation does not impart patentability to the apparatus claim. See MPEP 2115.
After reconsideration, the 102/103 and the 103 rejections of claims 4, 16, 21, and 22 are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Unkovic (US 20210308923 A1) teaches sensors adapted to measure a difference in color or opaqueness indicating a level of crystallinity of a given part ([0054], fig. 8).
Unkovic (US 20180281257 A1) teaches injection molding to approaches for making determination of part readiness while the part is still within the mold cavity ([0002], figs. 1-3).
Kukla (US 20150028507 A1) teaches acoustic noise sensing for controlling manufacture of a component part made of injection molding (abstract, [0002], fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 Here, the capacitive sensor meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a dielectric sensor, as evidenced by Baumer (A blog of Baumer, “Functionality and technology of capacitive sensors,” available at https://www.baumer.com/us/en/service-support/function-principle/functionality-and-technology-of-capacitive-sensors/a/Know-how_Function_Capacitive-sensors ) (page 2: Dielectric constant: capacitive sensors detect a dielectric constant of a media)
2 Here, the resonant sensor meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of an acoustic sensor, as evidenced by Drafts (Drafts, “Acoustic Wave Technology Sensors,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 49, 4, 795-801 (2021)) (page 796: TSM resonator is a type of acoustic sensor) and/or Haque (Haque et. al., “Optimization of capacitive acoustic resonant sensor using numerical simulation and design of experiment”, Sensors (Basel), 15 (4), 8945-67 (2015)) (abstract: acoustic resonant sensor)
3 As evidenced by LibreText 6.1.1: Dielectric Polarization, pages 1-2: Introduction. Available at https://batch.libretexts.org/print/url=https://eng.libretexts.org/Workbench/Materials_Science_for_Electrical_Engineering/06%3A_Thermal_Optical/6.01%3A_Optical_Properties/6.1.01%3A_Dielectric_Polarization.pdf.
Prosecution Insights