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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention 1 and Species 9 in the reply filed on 9 January 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 21-34 and 39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains a grammatical error: “based on an a volumetric flow rate” should read “based on a volumetric flow rate”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the first paragraph of the specification, “A 50087/20203” should be replaced with “A 50087/2023.” The application number appears to contain a typographical error; the correct application number is recited later in the same paragraph as “A 50087/2023”.
On page 45, in the last paragraph, “the output element 10” should be replaced with “the output element 11.” Reference numeral 10 denotes the data processing unit, while the output element is reference numeral 11 throughout the remainder of the specification and drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “the at least one hydraulic resistance ®.” The registered trademark symbol “®” appears to be a formatting artifact and should be deleted. To the extent that “R” or “(R)” is intended as a variable designation, note that independent claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, does not use such variable designations in connection with hydraulic resistance.
Claims 18 and 20 include variable designations (“R(δ)7i”, “i”, “R2i”, “ΔR2i”) alongside the recited hydraulic resistance and temperature control line limitations. Independent claim 1, from which these claims depend, does not use such variable designations. For consistency, the variable designations in claims 18 and 20 should be deleted.
Claim 20 recites “The method for supplying temperature control media to a mold of a molding machine according to claim 1.” However, claim 1 recites “A method for monitoring a device for supplying temperature control media to a mold of a molding machine.” The preamble of claim 20 should be made consistent with that of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
The “output element” in claim 7, which presents hydraulic resistance and/or change in resistance and/or heat flow and/or change in heat flow. The corresponding structure described in the specification is a visual display device, particularly a screen (see specification reference numeral 11 and associated description), and equivalents thereof.
The “control element” in claims 3 and 6, to the extent that these claims introduce new control element(s) beyond those recited in claim 1. In claim 1, the “control element” is accompanied by the narrowing phrase “in particular a volumetric flow valve,” which provides sufficient structural specificity and, as discussed below in the § 112(b) rejections, is being interpreted as a required limitation of the claim. However, the “at least one control element” newly introduced in claim 3 as one of the “at least two hydraulic resistance contributions” is not accompanied by such narrowing language. See also claim 6. The corresponding structure described in the specification is a valve, particularly a volumetric flow valve, flow regulator, flow regulating valve, or restrictor valve (motor-actuated or manually actuated) (see specification reference numeral 7 and associated description), and equivalents thereof.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
Claim 35 is directed to “[a] computer program product, comprising commands which, when the program is executed by a computer, prompt the latter to carry out the method of claim 1”. A computer program product, per se, does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). See MPEP § 2106.03(I). The claim does not recite any structural element (e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which the program is stored) that would bring it within a statutory category.
Claim 36 is directed to “[a] computer-readable storage medium comprising commands which, when executed by a computer, prompt the latter to carry out the method of claim 1”. Claim 37 is directed to “[a] computer-readable data carrier on which the computer program product according to claim 35 is stored”.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer-readable storage medium” and “computer-readable data carrier” covers both non-transitory media (e.g., hard drives, optical discs, flash memory) and transitory propagating signals (e.g., carrier waves, electromagnetic transmissions). The specification does not explicitly limit these terms to non-transitory embodiments. Because a transitory signal does not fall within any of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter, claims that encompass transitory signals are directed to non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The claims would be patent eligible if amended to recite a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “non-transitory computer-readable data carrier,” respectively.
Claim 38 is directed to “[a] data carrier signal, which transmits the computer program product according to claim 35”. A data carrier signal is a transitory propagating signal, which does not fall within any of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
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 1-20 and 35-38 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.
Multiple claims recite phrases such as “in particular,” “preferably,” and “particularly preferably,” which render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following these phrases are required features of the claimed invention or merely exemplary. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The specific instances are as follows:
Claim 1 recites “at least one measuring element, in particular a volumetric flow rate measuring element” and “at least one control element, in particular a volumetric flow valve”. In each instance, it is unclear whether the narrower limitation (e.g., “a volumetric flow rate measuring element”) is required or merely exemplary of the broader limitation (e.g., “at least one measuring element”).
Claim 2 recites “at least one measuring element, in particular a volumetric flow rate measuring element”.
Claim 3 recites “the sum of the pressure drops of at least two hydraulic resistance contributions, in particular of at least one consumer component of the molding machine, preferably of a temperature control channel through the mold, of a control cabinet cooling system, of a heat exchanger for an oil cooler, of a tie bar cooling system or of a heat exchanger for a drive train”. This claim contains nested broad-narrow phrasing with both “in particular” and “preferably”, making the scope of the required limitations particularly unclear.
Claim 7 recites “an output element, preferably a visual display device, particularly preferably a screen”.
Claim 9 recites “the warning signal is output visually, in particular through presentation on the screen”.
Each of claims 10 and 12 recites “using design data, in particular CAD data”.
Claim 16 defines n as “a dimensionless characteristic value in dependence on various parameters such as for example the cross section through which the volumetric flow Φi flows and/or the flow conditions, wherein the characteristic value n is approximately 2 in the case of a circular cross section and ideal flow conditions”. The phrase “such as for example” renders it unclear whether the identified parameters are required or merely exemplary. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 contains the same “such as for example” indefiniteness issue in its definition of n as described above with respect to claim 16.
Claim 20 recites “at least one control element, in particular a volumetric flow valve”.
For purposes of examination, the limitations introduced by “in particular” will be treated as required features of the claims. The limitations introduced by “preferably,” “particularly preferably,” and “such as for example” will be treated as exemplary and not required.
Claims 3-20 are further rejected based on their dependency from claim 1. Claim 13 is rejected based on its dependency from claim 12. Claim 17 is rejected based on its dependency from claim 16. Claims 35 and 36 each incorporate the method of claim 1 by reference, and claims 37 and 38 each incorporate the computer program product of claim 35 by reference. Accordingly, claims 35-38 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are rejected as well.
Several claims depend from claim 1 and recite limitations directed to “heat flow,” “change in heat flow,” and/or “temperature change.” However, claim 1 does not introduce any of these concepts. The terms “heat flow,” “change in heat flow,” and “temperature change” are introduced only in independent claim 2. There is therefore insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims as they depend from claim 1. The specific instances are as follows:
Claim 4 recites “and/or the at least one temperature change is measured by in each case one temperature sensor in the feed line and one temperature sensor in the return line”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least one temperature change”.
Claim 5 recites “and/or the at least one temperature change is measured by in each case two temperature sensors arranged in series”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least one temperature change”.
Claim 7 recites “the at least one heat flow and/or the at least one change in heat flow”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 8 recites “at least one permitted range… for the at least one heat flow” and “at least one permitted range of change … for the at least one change in heat flow”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least one heat flow” and “the at least one change in heat flow”.
Claim 10 recites “a calculation of the at least one hydraulic resistance and/or of the at least one heat flow”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least one heat flow”.
Claim 12 recites “the at least one heat flow and/or the at least one change in heat flow”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 14 recites “the heat flows and/or changes in heat flow of the consumer components”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
For purposes of examination, in claims depending from claim 1 that reference heat flow, change in heat flow, or temperature change via “and/or” constructions, the heat flow and temperature change alternatives will be interpreted as not further limiting claim 1, and examination will proceed on the hydraulic resistance and/or pressure drop alternative(s) only.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 8, claim 13 is rejected based on its dependency from claim 12, and claim 15 is rejected based on its dependency from claim 14.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10 2021 104 375 (“Duffner”).
Regarding claim 2, Duffner discloses a method for monitoring a device for supplying temperature control media to a mold of a molding machine (a method for controlled flow temperature control of an injection mold mounted on an injection molding machine, wherein the control unit C is “designed to control and monitor the temperature, temperature difference to the supply, flow rate and/or heat output dissipated in the temperature control channels 13”; see [0001], [0009], and [0025] of the provided translation; see also Figure 2),
wherein the device for supplying temperature control media has a feed line and a return line (a feed line 11 through which temperature control medium flows from a supply pump VP to the injection mold M, and a return line 12 through which temperature control medium is discharged from the injection mold M; see [0007], [0022], and [0023]; see also Figure 2), between which at least one temperature control line is arranged (several temperature control channels 13 are routed through the injection mold M and are in fluid contact with the feed line 11 and the return line 12; see [0007] and [0024]; see also Figure 2),
wherein at least one measuring element, in particular a volumetric flow rate measuring element, is arranged in each of the temperature control lines actually to be monitored (flow meters 16 are located in the respective temperature control channels 13 to measure the flow rate; see [0008] and [0024]; see also Figure 2),
wherein:
at least one temperature change in the at least one temperature control line is measured (the temperature difference between the supply and return of the respective temperature control channel is recorded: a supply temperature sensor 17 is provided in the common feed line 11, and temperature sensors 15 are provided in each temperature control channel 13 downstream of the injection mold M; the method records “[t]he temperature difference between the supply and return of the respective temperature control channel”; see [0015], [0024], [0029], and [0040]; see also Figure 2), and
at least one heat flow and/or at least one change in heat flow of the at least one temperature control line is calculated on the basis of an at least one volumetric flow rate measured using the at least one measuring element and on the basis of the at least one temperature change (“Preferably, the data is converted into a heat flow to enable precise tracking”; the heat flow is calculated from the temperature difference and the flow rate, with [0032] expressly describing the calculation as “dissipated heat output (delta T * volume flow)”; and [0040] confirming: “From this information, the control unit C can calculate the heat flow”; see [0015], [0025], [0028], [0032], and [0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-20, and 35-38 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and/or 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites a method for monitoring a device for supplying temperature control media to a mold of a molding machine. The device has a feed line and a return line, between which at least one temperature control line is arranged, with at least one measuring element (in particular a volumetric flow rate measuring element) in each temperature control line to be monitored, and at least one control element (in particular a volumetric flow valve) in each temperature control line to be regulated. The method requires measuring at least one pressure drop, calculating at least one hydraulic resistance and/or at least one change in resistance on the basis of a measured volumetric flow rate and the measured pressure drop. The degree of opening of the at least one control element is taken into consideration in the calculation of the at least one hydraulic resistance and/or the at least one change in resistance.
US 2014/0175692 (“Raschke”) (cited in an IDS) represents the closest prior art. Specifically, Raschke discloses a method of monitoring an apparatus for temperature control media supply of a tool of an injection molding machine (see the abstract). The apparatus has a feed 3 and a return 6, between which at least one temperature control conduit 4, 5 is arranged, passing through the tool 2 (see Figure 1 and [0031]). At least one through-flow sensor 8 (i.e., a volumetric flow rate measuring element) is arranged in each temperature control conduit (see id.). At least one through-flow regulating valve 7 (i.e., a volumetric flow valve) is present for controlling the quantitative flow rate through the temperature control conduits (see Figure 1 and [0032]). Raschke teaches measuring at least one pressure drop using pressure sensors 9 (see Figure 1, [0014], and [0031]) and calculating at least one hydraulic resistance R = Δp/Φ² on the basis of the measured volume flow and the measured pressure drop (see [0020]).
However, Raschke does not disclose that the degree of opening of the control element (the through-flow regulating valve 7) is taken into consideration in the calculation of the hydraulic resistance, as claimed.
DE 10 2012 023 848 (“iEXERGY”) (cited in an IDS) is directed to a method for hydraulic balancing of heating and cooling pipe networks in buildings (i.e., in HVAC systems), not injection molding (see 1.1 and 3.1 of the provided translation). iEXERGY teaches determining hydraulic resistance values (C = Δp/V̇²) of individual flow paths in a pipe network by setting a speed-controlled pump to a defined constant delivery head, then sequentially closing all valves and opening one at a time to measure each flow path’s volume flow in isolation (see 5.1.1-5.1.9). Since iEXERGY accounts for valve presetting values when characterizing the hydraulic resistance of individual flow paths, iEXERGY teaches the general concept of distinguishing a valve’s contribution from the overall resistance of a fluid path.
However, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the feature of iEXERGY into Raschke given the different technical fields and the different purposes of each invention. Additionally, the process described in 5.1.1-5.1.9 of iEXERGY cannot be used during normal operation of a temperature control system of an injection molding apparatus and, therefore, cannot be used to monitor such a system, as desired by Raschke.
Claims 3-20 contain allowable subject matter based on their dependency from claim 1, and claims 35-38 contain allowable subject matter based on their incorporation of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, AT 521443 is relevant to claim 2. See the provided translation, which discloses:
“According to the variant in FIG. 4, there is a temperature sensor 46 in the flow 36 and the return 37 of the heat exchanger 24, and a volume flow measurement 47 only in one of the two lines (flow 42 or return 43). A cold or hot medium flows through the heat exchanger 24, the temperature is measured via the temperature sensors 46 at the inlet and outlet of the heat exchanger 24, and the volume flow occurring in the process is measured via the volume flow measurement 47 and sent to the controller 22. If heat is now released in the pressure vessel 31 to the process medium 32 via the heat exchanger 24 -heating circuit 29 active- or withdrawn from the process medium 32 -cooling circuit 30 active - there is a medium temperature difference between the heat exchanger entering and leaving, i.e. the Flow 42 and return 43. With this differential temperature and the measured volume flow, the thermal energy can be determined by the controller 22 and shown, for example, on the display 14.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John DeRusso whose telephone number is (571)270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00 AM-6:00 PM ET.
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, 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.
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744