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 temperature detector configured to detect an actual temperature of each of the zones -> 0141 “the first temperature detectors 314 include, for example, a first detector disposed upstream in a direction in which the molding material is fed (e.g., a first temperature detector 314A), a second detector disposed downstream of the first detector (e.g., a first temperature detector 314B or 314C), and a third detector disposed downstream of the second detector (e.g., a first temperature detector 314D).
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
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 1-16 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. Claims that depend from a rejected base claim inherit the base rejection for “temperature detector configured to.”
Claim limitation “temperature detector configured to” invokes 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. The specification does not define the structure of the detector other than a black box equivalent. The detector is described in terms of function and not structure. 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 10- 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lau et al. (PG/PUB 20070001332).
Claim 1.
Lau et al. teaches a management device (Figure 2, ABSTRACT) for an injection molding machine including a cylinder divided into zones from upstream to downstream along a direction in which a molding material is fed (ABSTRACT, Figure 2, Figure 1, 0028-29, 0054-58)
a temperature adjuster provided in each of the zones, and a temperature detector configured to detect an actual temperature of each of the zones (ABSTRACT, Figure 2, 0006, 0012-0014, 0045-49, 0050-52)
the management device (Figure 1) comprising:
processing circuitry (Figure 1-20) configured to detect abnormal heat generation due to shearing of the molding material based on the actual temperature of a predetermined zone of the zones excluding a most upstream zone and a most downstream zone (0054-0058 e.g. see determining anomalous temperature based in part on shear heat generated across a plurality of zones, excluding non-sensor zones (e.g. most upstream and downstream, Figure 2)
Claim 2. The management device for the injection molding machine according to claim 1, wherein
the processing circuitry is configured to detect the abnormal heat generation based on the actual temperature and a set temperature in the predetermined zone (0054-58, Figure 2, Figure 3)
Claim 3. The management device for the injection molding machine according to claim 1, wherein
the processing circuitry is configured to increase a set temperature of a zone upstream of a zone in which the abnormal heat generation is detected, the zone upstream and the zone in which the abnormal heat generation is detected being from among the zones (Figure 2, 0054-58)
Claim 5. A management device for an injection molding machine including a cylinder configured to heat a molding material therein, a rotating member configured to rotate in the cylinder and feed the molding material from upstream to downstream, temperature adjusters each configured to adjust a temperature of the cylinder, and temperature detectors each configured to detect an actual temperature of the cylinder (ABSTRACT, figure 1, Figure 2 0006, 0017), the management device comprising:
processing circuitry, wherein
the temperature detectors include a first detector disposed upstream in a direction in which the molding material is fed (s4), a second detector disposed downstream of the first detector (s4-s2), and a third detector disposed downstream of the second detector (s5) (figure 2, figure 2, 0017 e.g. see relative location per temperature sensor spaced apart from upstream to downstream)
the processing circuitry is configured to detect abnormal heat generation due to shearing of the molding material based on the actual temperature detected by the second detector ( e.g. 0054-0058 e.g. see determining anomalous temperature based in part on shear heat generated across a plurality of zones, excluding non-sensor zones (e.g. most upstream and downstream, Figure 2)
Claim 6. The management device for the injection molding machine according to claim 5, wherein
the temperature adjusters include heaters (0017, figure 2, figure 3 h1 to h6)
the first detector is the temperature detector that is closest to the heater disposed most upstream among the heaters (Figure 2, 0028 e.g. Sn relative to Hn, i.e., h1 to h5)
the third detector is the temperature detector that is closest to the heater disposed most downstream among the heaters (Figure 2, 0028 e.g. se Sn relative to Hn, h1 to h5)
Claim 7. An injection molding machine, comprising:
the management device according to claim 1;
the cylinder (ABSTRACT, Figure 2)
the temperature adjuster (ABSTRACT, Figure 2 e.g. heater) and
the temperature detector (ABSTRACT, Figure 2, 0042 e.g. temperature sensor)
Claim 10. The management device for the injection molding machine according to claim 2, wherein
the processing circuitry is configured to increase the set temperature of a zone upstream of a zone in which the abnormal heat generation is detected, the zone upstream and the zone in which the abnormal heat generation is detected being from among the zones (0054-0058 e.g. see determining anomalous temperature based in part on shear heat generated across a plurality of zones, excluding non-sensor zones (e.g. most upstream and downstream, Figure 2)
Claim 11. An injection molding machine, comprising:
the management device according to claim 2;
the cylinder (figure 2, 0017)
the temperature adjuster (figure 2, 0017) and
the temperature detector (figure 2, 0017)
Claim 12. An injection molding machine, comprising:
the management device according to claim 3;
the cylinder (figure 2, 0017)
the temperature adjuster (figure 2, 0016)
the temperature detector (figure 2, 0016)
Claim 13. An injection molding machine, comprising:
the management device according to claim 4;
the cylinder (figure 2, 0017)
the temperature adjuster (figure 2, 0017)
the temperature detector (figure 2, 0017)
Claim 14. An injection molding machine, comprising:
the management device according to claim 5;
the cylinder ((figure 2, 0017)
the temperature adjuster (figure 2, 0017)and
the temperature detector (figure 2, 0017)
Claim 15. An injection molding machine, comprising:
the management device according to claim 6;
the cylinder; (figure 2, 0017)
the temperature adjuster; (figure 2, 0017)
the temperature detector (figure 2, 0017)
Claim 16. An injection molding machine, comprising:
the management device according to claim 12;
the cylinder; (figure 2, 0017)
the temperature adjuster; (figure 2, 0017)
the temperature detector. (figure 2, 0017)
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uchiyama et al. (PG/PUB 20040166188).
Claim 8. Uchiyama et teaches a management device (Figure 1, ABSTRACT) for an injection molding machine including a cylinder configured to heat a molding material therein (claim 7 e.g. cylinder associated with resin), a rotating member provided in the cylinder (claim 11 e.g. screw), a drive source (0010 e.g. driving motor) configured to rotate the rotating member, and a torque detector (Figure 2, 0006) configured to detect an actual torque of the rotating member (Figure 1, Figure 2 the management device comprising:
processing circuitry configured to detect abnormal heat generation due to shearing of the molding material based on the actual torque (e.g. see determining abnormal heat generation due to shearing forces based on generated torque, namely identifying heat generation due to shearing force, the shearing forces based on driving torque , 0015 “ According to still another aspect of the present invention, the monitoring device comprises: detecting means for detecting a rate of heat generation per unit time by the heater in the metering process; storing means for storing the rate of heat generation of the heater with elapsing time in the metering process; setting means for setting an allowable range of the rate of heat generation by the heater in a determination section in the metering process; and determination means for determining an abnormality of the metering process when the rate of heat generation by the heater deviates from the allowable range in the determination section. In this case, the setting means may set the determination section in terms of the elapsing time, and the determination means may determine an abnormality of the metering if the rate of heat generation by the heater deviates from the allowable range in the determination section of the elapsing time,” see also 0010 e.g. “ When resin is sheared, plasticized, and melted by rotating the screw, the shearing and plasticization of the resin act upon the screw as a load and thus can be estimated from the magnitude of driving torque of a motor etc. for rotating the screw. There has been known a product quality determination method wherein the driving torque of the motor for rotating the screw is monitored and if the driving torque deviates from a preset allowable range, the deviation is detected as metering abnormality (see, for example, JP 06-297532A), see also 0013 e.g. “With the above arrangement, a heat generation by shearing of resin can be estimated on the basis of the rate of heat generation by the heater displayed in the form of a graph, to thus enable monitoring of the resin shearing state.”)
Claim 9. An injection molding machine, comprising:
the management device according to claim 8;
the cylinder (Uchiyama et ABSTRACT, figure 1)
the rotating member (Uchiyama et ABSTRACT, figure 1)
the drive source (Uchiyama et ABSTRACT, figure 1)
the torque detector (Uchiyama et ABSTRACT, figure 1)
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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (PG/PUB 20070001332) in view over Baldassarre et al. (PG/PUB 20210303381).
Claim 4. The cited art teaches the management device for the injection molding machine according to claim 3 but does not expressly each the providing, notification, and confirming limitations described below. Baldassare et al. teaches the providing, notification, and confirming limitations described below, wherein
the processing circuitry is configured to
provide a user of the injection molding machine with a notification for confirming whether or not the user permits change of the set temperature after detection of the abnormal heat generation and before increasing of the set temperature (Baldassare et al. e.g. see identifying a process fault, obtaining corrective actions, notifying an operator of pending corrective actions, and receiving operator approval before implementing corrective actions for fault remediation 0012, 0049, 0059, 0061, 0076, see also the analogous actions Lau including changing a set temperature responsive to identifying an anomalous temperature, 0047, 0058-59)
then increase the set temperature in a case in which the management device confirms permission of the user (Lau, 0047, 0058-59, see also implementation of corrective action of Baldassare et al., 0012, 0049, 0059-61, 0076)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Baldassare et al., namely implementing corrective actions responsive to receiving operator approval upon notification of a fault and corresponding corrective actions, to the teachings of Lau, namely operator implementation of temperature increases responsive to identifying anomalous temperatures, would achieve an expected and predictable result of receiving operator approval to implement corrective, temperature increases responsive to anomalous temperatures. Baldassare et al. is reasonably pertinent to a problem of fault remediation and a benefit of operator verification of corrective actions for preventing improper remediations, as described, ABSTRACT, summary of invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Claim 1 relevancy
20090057938 20040166188 WO2007105646 20240335997 20240042665 20230367924 11407156 20220219366 20220134623 20070057394 20070001332 5551857 20110215496
Claim 4 relevancy
20230022193 20170050362 20160121532 -0027 20120016607 -0177 0052 20240184280 5617311 20230230469 -0007 2021030338 20190129395
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights