Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In the applicant’s reply of 2 June 2026, the specification, abstract, and claims were amended. Based on these amendments, the abstract, specification, and claim objections included in the previous office action are withdrawn. The § 101 and 112(b) rejections are also withdrawn.
The following claim limitation was previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but is no longer so interpreted in view of the amendment filed 2 June 2026: the “output element” in claim 7. Claim 7 has been amended to recite that the hydraulic resistance and/or change in resistance and/or heat flow and/or change in heat flow “is presented on a display device including a screen”, which recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
The “control element” in claims 3 and 6 is likewise no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As amended, neither claim introduces a control element beyond the at least one control element recited in claim 1. Claim 3 recites “the control element” and claim 6 recites “the mass flow control element”, each referring to the control element of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2 June 2026 have been fully considered. Those arguments are persuasive in part, as set forth below.
Rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Applicant argues that the applied Duffner reference does not disclose outputting any warning signal. This argument is persuasive. The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is withdrawn.
Applicant further argues that the other prior art references of record do not teach or suggest any warning signal initiated by departure of a heat flow from a permitted heat flow range or by departure of a change in heat flow from a permitted range of change. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 2 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Duffner in view of Raschke. See below.
Allowable subject matter. Applicant argues that the degree of opening of the control elements is not disclosed in the iEXERGY reference, asserting that iEXERGY determines a hydraulic resistance for each individual line by fully opening and fully closing the control elements and contains no suggestion of any degree of opening other than the binary states of fully open and fully closed. This characterization of iEXERGY is not adopted. While the measurement sequence described at sections 5.1.4 through 5.1.9 of iEXERGY proceeds by fully closing and fully opening individual throttle elements, iEXERGY further discloses obtaining, from a manufacturer database, the k(v) value corresponding to each preset value of a valve, calculating the pressure loss across the valve, and determining a hydraulic characteristic value adjusted for the valve pressure losses (see iEXERGY sections 5.1.13 through 5.1.15). The output of the iEXERGY method is a set of hydraulically optimized valve presetting values (see iEXERGY section 5.1.11). iEXERGY is therefore not limited to binary valve states.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Examiner maintains that claim 1 contains allowable subject matter, for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 12, 14-16, 18, 35, and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a volumetric flow rate measured using the measuring element”. Claim 1 recites “a volumetric flow rate measuring element” and does not recite a measuring element. “The measuring element” should be replaced with “the volumetric flow rate measuring element” for consistency with the remainder of the claim. Note that claim 2 was amended to recite “the volumetric flow rate measuring element” in the corresponding limitation.
Claim 1 recites “selected from a group consisting of”. “A group” should be replaced with “the group” in accordance with conventional Markush practice. See MPEP § 2117.
Claim 3 recites “wherein, via measuring a pressure drop”. Claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites “measuring a pressure drop in the temperature control line”. “A pressure drop” should be replaced with “the pressure drop” for consistency with claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the sum of the pressure drops of at least two hydraulic resistance contributions, 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, as well as of the control element, is measured and/or calculated, wherein one hydraulic resistance contribution of the at least two hydraulic resistance contributions represents the control element”. Two informalities are present. First, following the deletion of the phrase “in particular of at least one consumer component of the molding machine, preferably of a temperature control channel through the mold” by the amendment filed 2 June 2026, the recited series no longer has an introductory phrase, and the relationship between the “at least two hydraulic resistance contributions” and the recited components is grammatically unclear. Second, the recitation “as well as of the control element” is redundant of the final wherein clause, which already requires that one hydraulic resistance contribution of the at least two hydraulic resistance contributions represents the control element. Appropriate correction, for example “the sum of the pressure drops of at least two hydraulic resistance contributions, namely of at least one of a control cabinet cooling system, a heat exchanger for an oil cooler, a tie bar cooling system, and a heat exchanger for a drive train, is measured and/or calculated, wherein one hydraulic resistance contribution of the at least two hydraulic resistance contributions represents the control element”, is required.
Claim 12 recites that the hydraulic resistance and/or the change in resistance and/or a heat flow and/or a change in heat flow “is calculated by a consumer component of the molding machine at least once using measured data”. A consumer component of the molding machine is a component through which temperature control medium flows, such as a temperature control channel through the mold, a control cabinet cooling system or a heat exchanger, and does not itself perform a calculation. “By” should be replaced with “for”.
Claim 14 recites “wherein at least a portion of the consumer components having lower hydraulic resistances and/or low heat flows are connected in series”. “Having” should be replaced with “that have” so that the wherein clause recites a complete sentence.
Claims 14 and 15 each recite “the consumer components”. Neither claim 14, claim 15, nor claim 1, from which claim 14 depends, previously recites consumer components. For consistency, claim 14 should recite “consumer components” in the first instance and “the consumer components” thereafter, and claim 15 should recite “the consumer components” of claim 14.
Claim 16 recites “Δp(δ) denotes the pressure drop of the temperature control line of a supply system to be monitored and to be regulated or to be controlled based on on a degree of opening δ of the control element”. The duplicated word “on” should be deleted.
Claim 18 recites “further comprising reading the hydraulic resistance … from a computer-readable storage medium and/or calculated by a processor using an approximation function”. “Calculated” should be replaced with “calculating” for consistency with the amended “further comprising reading” construction.
Claim 35 recites “A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium”. Claims 36 and 37 each recite “computer-readable”. “Computer readable” should be hyphenated for consistency.
Claim 35 recites “commands which, when the program is executed by a computer”. Claim 35 recites a computer program product and does not separately recite a program. “The program” should be replaced with “the computer program product” for consistency with the remainder of the claim.
Claim 37 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable data carrier on which the computer program product according to claim 35 is stored”. As amended, claim 35 recites a computer program product that is itself “embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium”. It is therefore unclear what is added by reciting a further non-transitory data carrier on which that product is stored. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 36 be found allowable, claim 37 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 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 “control element measuring another value correlating to the volumetric flow rate” recited as the third member of the group in claim 1. The term “element” is a generic placeholder having no specific structural meaning. The placeholder is modified only by the functional language “measuring another value correlating to the volumetric flow rate”, and is not preceded by a structural modifier or otherwise accompanied by structure sufficient to perform the recited measuring function. The Examiner notes that the “degree of opening” recited later in claim 1 does not supply such structure with respect to this member of the group, because a degree of opening is not an attribute of an element defined solely by a measuring function.
The written description does not disclose corresponding structure for performing the recited measuring function. The specification assigns the measuring function to the measuring element (reference numeral 8) and the controlling function to the control element (reference numeral 7), which are described as separate components arranged in the temperature control line (see pages 41 and 42; see also Figures 3-8). No structure is described and clearly linked to a control element that performs a measurement.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-20, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “at least one control element selected from a group consisting of a volumetric flow control element, a mass flow control element, and a control element measuring another value correlating to the volumetric flow rate”. The second and third members of the recited group, namely “a mass flow control element” and “a control element measuring another value correlating to the volumetric flow rate”, constitute new matter.
The specification as originally filed describes the control element only as a valve that regulates or controls a volumetric flow rate. The specification states that the temperature control line “additionally contains… at least one control element, in particular a valve, in particular a volumetric flow valve” (see pages 8 and 9), that “[t]he control element, in particular the volumetric flow valve, can represent an additional hydraulic resistance” (see page 9), and that “[t]he control element can be used for controlling or regulating the volumetric flow rate or a temperature difference in a temperature control channel and/or temperature control circuit” (see page 9). The control element is identified throughout by reference numeral 7 and is described as “a control element 7, in particular a valve, in particular a volumetric flow valve” (see page 42; see also Figures 3-8) and, in the embodiment of Figure 8, as “a restrictor valve 7” (see page 46). Where the specification contemplates variation in the control element, that variation remains within the class of valves: “different valves, which are desired or necessary in particular temperature control circuits because of their manufacturing tolerances or due to different structural shapes, can be used. It is therefore also possible to use motor-actuated and/or manually actuated control elements” (see page 18).
The specification nowhere describes a control element that regulates or controls a mass flow, and nowhere describes a control element that performs a measurement of any kind.
The only passage in the specification directed to mass flow and to values correlating to the volumetric flow rate states: “It can further be provided that, in addition to the measurement of a volumetric flow rate, a mass flow and/or another value correlating to the volumetric flow rate is also measured and/or calculated with the aid of the volumetric flow rate” (see page 8). This passage appears within the description of the measuring element and is directed to the quantities that are measured or calculated. It is not directed to the control element, and it does not describe any element that controls a mass flow. It therefore does not convey possession of a control element of the type recited in the second or third member of the recited group.
The third member of the recited group is further unsupported in that it defines the control element by a measuring function. The specification assigns the measuring function to the measuring element (reference numeral 8) and the controlling function to the control element (reference numeral 7), and describes these as separate components arranged in the temperature control line (see pages 41 and 42; see also Figures 3-8). The specification does not describe a single element that performs both functions.
The first member of the recited group, “a volumetric flow control element”, is supported by the disclosure identified above and is not included in this rejection.
Claims 3-20 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1. Claims 35 and 36 each incorporate the method of claim 1 by reference, and claim 37 incorporates the computer program product of claim 35 by reference. Accordingly, claims 35-37 are rejected as well.
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.
Claims 1-20 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “at least one control element selected from a group consisting of a volumetric flow control element, a mass flow control element, and a control element measuring another value correlating to the volumetric flow rate”. Claim 1 subsequently recites that the hydraulic resistance and/or the change in resistance of the temperature control line is calculated based on “a degree of opening of the mass flow control element”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the mass flow control element”. Claim 1 requires a single control element selected from a group of three alternatives, only one of which is a mass flow control element. Where the selected control element is a volumetric flow control element, or is a control element measuring another value correlating to the volumetric flow rate, no mass flow control element is present in the claimed method and the recited calculating step cannot be carried out as claimed. It is therefore unclear whether claim 1 requires a mass flow control element in every embodiment, notwithstanding the recited group of alternatives, or whether the degree of opening of whichever control element is selected from the recited group is to be used in the calculation. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is being interpreted as reciting “a degree of opening of the at least one control element” instead of “a degree of opening of the mass flow control element”.
Claim limitation “a control element measuring another value correlating to the volumetric flow rate” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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 assigns the measuring function to the measuring element (reference numeral 8) and the controlling function to the control element (reference numeral 7), which are described as separate components arranged in the temperature control line (see pages 41 and 42; see also Figures 3-8). No structure is described and clearly linked to a control element that performs a measurement. Accordingly, claim 1 is indefinite. See MPEP § 2181, subsection III.
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 3-20 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1. Claims 35 and 36 each incorporate the method of claim 1 by reference, and claim 37 incorporates the computer program product of claim 35 by reference. Accordingly, claims 35-37 are rejected as well.
Claims 6 and 16-18 each recite “the mass flow control element”. Claim 6 recites that the hydraulic resistance and/or the change in resistance “is calculated from at least two contributions including a temperature control channel through the mold and the mass flow control element”. Claim 16 recites that “Δp(δ)7i denotes the pressure drop depending on the degree of opening of the mass flow control element in the temperature control line i”. Claim 17 recites the same limitation, and further recites that “R(δ)7i denotes the hydraulic resistance of the mass flow control element depending on the degree of opening of the mass flow control element” and that “Δp(δ) denotes the pressure drop of the supply system with the temperature control line to be monitored and to be regulated or to be controlled depending on the degree of opening δ of the mass flow control element”. Claim 18 recites “reading the hydraulic resistance of the control element depending on the degree of opening of the mass flow control element”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations, for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1. For purposes of examination, each recitation of “the mass flow control element” in claims 6 and 16-18 is being interpreted as reciting “the at least one control element”.
Claim 8 recites “defining a permitted range for the hydraulic resistance and/or for a heat flow of the temperature control line”, and “defining a permitted range of change for the change in resistance and/or for a change in heat flow of the temperature control line”. Claim 8 then recites “outputting a warning signal when the hydraulic resistance departs from the permitted range and/or when the change in resistance departs from the permitted range of change”.
The warning signal recited in claim 8 is thus output only upon departure of the hydraulic resistance or the change in resistance from the respective range. Where the permitted range is defined for a heat flow, and where the permitted range of change is defined for a change in heat flow, claim 8 recites the defining of ranges that bear no relationship to the recited outputting step, and it is unclear what is required of the claimed method. Claim 8 as originally filed recited that the warning signal is output when the heat flow or the change in heat flow departs from the respective range. That language has been deleted by the amendment filed 2 June 2026 while the corresponding heat flow ranges have been retained in the defining steps.
For purposes of examination, examination of claim 8 will proceed on the alternatives in which the permitted range is defined for the hydraulic resistance and the permitted range of change is defined for the change in resistance.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the device further has at least two temperature control lines extending through a mold of a molding machine, and/or wherein the device further has at least two temperature control lines connected in parallel”.
It is unclear whether the at least two temperature control lines recited in the second alternative are the at least two temperature control lines recited in the first alternative or further, distinct temperature control lines. It is further unclear whether the recited mold of a molding machine is the mold of a molding machine recited in claim 1 or a further, distinct mold.
For purposes of examination, claim 11 is being interpreted as reciting “the at least two temperature control lines” in the second alternative and “the mold of the molding machine” in the first alternative.
Claim 1 recites “calculating a hydraulic resistance and/or a change in resistance of the temperature control line”. Claim 18 recites “reading the hydraulic resistance of the control element depending on the degree of opening of the mass flow control element… from a computer-readable storage medium”. Claim 20 recites “wherein the target value is calculated depending on the hydraulic resistance and/or the change in resistance of a temperature control channel through the mold in the temperature control line to be monitored and to be regulated or to be controlled”.
In each instance, the definite article refers back to the hydraulic resistance and/or change in resistance of the temperature control line recited in claim 1, but the quantity is then attributed to a different element: the control element in claim 18, and a temperature control channel through the mold in claim 20. It is therefore unclear whether claims 18 and 20 recite the hydraulic resistance and/or change in resistance of claim 1, or whether they recite additional and distinct quantities associated with the control element and with a temperature control channel through the mold, respectively. In the claims as originally filed, these quantities were distinguished from the hydraulic resistance of claim 1 by the variable designations R(δ)7i, R2i, and ΔR2i, which have been deleted by the amendment filed 2 June 2026.
For purposes of examination, claim 18 is being interpreted as reciting “a hydraulic resistance of the at least one control element”, and claim 20 is being interpreted as reciting “a hydraulic resistance and/or a change in resistance of a temperature control channel through the mold”, in each case distinct from the hydraulic resistance and/or change in resistance recited in claim 1.
Claim 20 recites “further comprising regulating or controlling a volumetric flow valve according to a target value for a pressure of the temperature control medium and/or for a volumetric flow rate of the temperature control medium”. Claim 1, from which claim 20 depends, recites “at least one control element selected from a group consisting of a volumetric flow control element, a mass flow control element, and a control element measuring another value correlating to the volumetric flow rate”, and does not recite a volumetric flow valve. It is unclear whether the volumetric flow valve of claim 20 is the at least one control element of claim 1, or whether claim 20 requires a further element in addition to the control element of claim 1.
For purposes of examination, claim 20 is being interpreted as reciting that the at least one control element of claim 1 is regulated or controlled according to the recited target value.
Claim 2 recites “measuring a temperature change in the temperature control line” and subsequently recites that the heat flow and/or change in heat flow is calculated based on “a volumetric flow rate measured using the volumetric flow rate measuring element, and a temperature change”. It is unclear whether the second recited temperature change is the temperature change measured in the preceding step or a further, distinct temperature change.
Claim 2 further recites “calculating a heat flow and/or a change in heat flow of the temperature control line” and subsequently recites “defining: a permitted range for a heat flow of the temperature control line, and/or a permitted range of change for a change in heat flow of the temperature control line”. It is unclear whether the heat flow and change in heat flow for which ranges are defined are the heat flow and change in heat flow calculated in the preceding step or further, distinct quantities. As a consequence, the recitations “the heat flow departs from the permitted range” and “the change in heat flow departs from the permitted range of change” in the outputting step each have two possible antecedents.
For purposes of examination, claim 2 is being interpreted as reciting “the temperature change”, “the heat flow”, and “the change in heat flow” in each of the instances identified above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2021 104 375 (“Duffner”) in view of US 2014/0175692 (“Raschke”) (cited in an IDS).
The following rejection is made in view of the interpretation of claim 2 set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 2, Duffner discloses a method of 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), and a temperature control line arranged between the feed line and the return line (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 a volumetric flow rate measuring element is arranged in the temperature control line 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), the method comprising:
measuring a temperature change in the temperature control line (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
calculating a heat flow and/or a change in heat flow of the temperature control line based on a volumetric flow rate measured using the volumetric flow rate measuring element and the 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]).
Duffner does not expressly disclose defining a permitted range for the heat flow of the temperature control line and/or a permitted range of change for the change in heat flow of the temperature control line, and outputting a warning signal when the heat flow departs from the permitted range and/or when the change in heat flow departs from the permitted range of change.
Raschke, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method of monitoring an apparatus for temperature control media supply of a tool of an injection molding machine (see the abstract), in which at least one permitted range is established for a monitored value of the at least one temperature control conduit and/or at least one permitted change range is established for a change in that value, and a warning signal is produced when the value leaves the at least one permitted range and/or the change in that value leaves the at least one permitted change range (see [0016]; see also claim 5). Raschke further teaches that the permitted ranges and permitted change ranges may be determined by measurement or simulation before the start of operation (see [0017]), that the warning signal may be produced optically, in particular by representation on a display screen 13, and/or acoustically as a warning sound (see [0018] and [0031]), and that the injection molding machine may be shut down when the warning signal is produced (see [0019]).
Raschke states that this arrangement is provided “[t]o automate the detection of blockages or deposits” (see [0016]), and identifies the harm to be avoided in thermal terms, namely that unobserved deposits or blockages entail “the risk of a change in the thermal characteristics in the tool as far as damage to the tool in the event of too great a deviation from predetermined temperatures” (see [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Duffner to define a permitted range for the calculated heat flow of the temperature control channel 13 and/or a permitted range of change for the calculated change in heat flow, and to output a warning signal when the heat flow departs from the permitted range and/or when the change in heat flow departs from the permitted range of change, as taught by Raschke, in order to automate the detection of blockages or deposits in the temperature control channels 13 (see Raschke [0016]).
Duffner already calculates the heat flow of each temperature control channel 13 and uses it as a reference variable for temperature control (see [0040]), and the control unit C of Duffner is expressly designed to monitor the heat output dissipated in the temperature control channels 13 (see [0009] and [0025]). Duffner therefore provides a monitored value to which Raschke’s range-and-warning technique may be applied without alteration of that technique. Raschke identifies the condition to be detected as a deposit or blockage in a temperature control conduit (see Raschke [0004] and [0016]), which is a condition that manifests in the heat flow that Duffner already calculates. Applying Raschke’s known technique of comparing a monitored value against a permitted range and outputting a warning signal upon departure, to Duffner’s known method of calculating and monitoring the heat flow of each temperature control channel, would have yielded no more than the predictable result of alerting the operator when the heat flow of a temperature control channel departs from its permitted range. See MPEP § 2143(D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-20, and 35-37 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 of 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, and a temperature control line arranged between the feed line and the return line, with a volumetric flow rate measuring element in the temperature control line to be monitored and at least one control element in the temperature control line to be regulated or to be controlled. The method requires measuring a pressure drop in the temperature control line and calculating a hydraulic resistance and/or a change in resistance of the temperature control line based on a measured volumetric flow rate, the measured pressure drop, and a degree of opening of the at least one control element.
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 control element) 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 a degree of opening of the control element (the through-flow regulating valve 7) is taken into consideration in the calculation of the hydraulic resistance and/or the change in resistance, as claimed. Raschke teaches the reverse relationship, namely that target values for the pressure or the volume flow of the temperature control medium are established in dependence on the hydraulic resistance and/or the resistance change (see [0023]).
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). iEXERGY further teaches obtaining, from a manufacturer database, the k(v) value corresponding to each preset value of a valve, calculating the pressure loss across the valve, and determining therefrom a hydraulic characteristic value adjusted for the valve pressure losses (see 5.1.13-5.1.15). iEXERGY therefore 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.
Nor would it have been obvious to have incorporated the valve pressure loss determination of 5.1.13-5.1.15 of iEXERGY alone into Raschke. In iEXERGY, the pressure loss across the valve is determined in order to isolate the resistance attributable to the pipe network, for the purpose of calculating optimized valve presetting values during a balancing procedure, and it is evaluated at a fixed valve position established for that procedure (see 5.1.5, 5.1.9, and 5.1.13). Raschke, by contrast, calculates the hydraulic resistance of the temperature control conduit during operation for the purpose of detecting deposits and blockages, and the through-flow regulating valve 7 of Raschke is subject to closed or open loop control during operation (see [0023] and [0035]). Raschke does not identify a changing degree of opening of the through-flow regulating valve 7 as affecting the calculated hydraulic resistance; the only such variation Raschke addresses is the alteration of the exponent of the volume flow to account for different geometrical conditions occurring in the conduits (see [0020]). The prior art of record therefore does not provide a reason to take a degree of opening of the control element into consideration in calculating the hydraulic resistance and/or the change in resistance.
Claims 3-20 contain allowable subject matter based on their dependency from claim 1, and claims 35-37 contain allowable subject matter based on their incorporation of claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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
Prosecution Insights