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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the applicant’s reply of 22 June 2026, the claims were amended. Based on these amendments, the § 102 and 103 rejections included in the previous office action have been reconsidered and are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the § 102 and 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection, which use JP 2011-183704 (“Yamashita”), do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The following is nonetheless noted.
The applicant contends (Remarks, pages 6-7) that the prior art teaches accounting for control delay only in the position or speed domain and does not teach using the actual value of the pressure to control the compensation. Yamashita discloses this feature: considering the responsiveness of the switch, the switchover from speed control to pressure control is performed when the detected resin pressure drops to a predetermined pressure slightly higher than the set pressure ([0035]). This is a pressure-based switchover threshold, offset above the holding-pressure target and set in consideration of the responsiveness (i.e., the control delay) of the switch, as claimed.
The applicant’s arguments specific to Tokuno and Yokobayashi are moot, as neither reference is relied upon in the rejections below. The applicant’s argument that Komiya was cited merely for teaching a stop process in which the movement of the injection member is stopped for a brief time (Remarks, page 7) does not apply to the present rejections, in which Komiya is relied upon only for the display unit ([0036]). The stop process in which the movement of the injection member is stopped for its entire duration is disclosed by Yamashita.
Claim Interpretation
As noted in the previous office actions, claims 3, 7, and 8 refer to a value offset from a set value of the pressure at a time of start of the holding pressure process to a high pressure side by a predetermined amount. This is understood as referring to a value that is offset by a predetermined positive amount from the set value of the pressure at the start of the holding pressure process so as to be greater than the set value by the predetermined amount.
The “predetermined value” recited in claim 1, and the corresponding recitation in claim 12, is interpreted as a value that is determined in advance of the stop process. The specification describes the timing setting unit 718 as setting the timing at which the stop process is switched to the holding pressure process on the basis of an actual value of the pressure in the stop process and a value (P1 + ΔP) offset from the set value P1 of the pressure at the time of start of the holding pressure process to a high pressure side by a predetermined amount ΔP ([0129]). The specification further describes that ΔP “is set in advance on the basis of the amount of reduction in an actual value in the pressure that is caused by a control delay (time lag), and is stored in advance in the storage medium 702” ([0129]).
Consistent with this disclosure, the recited basis, “a change in the actual value of the pressure in the stop process caused by a control delay”, is understood to refer to the pressure change characteristic of the control delay, on the basis of which the predetermined value is set in advance. The recitation is not understood to require that the predetermined value be recalculated from the pressure monitored during the stop process of the current shot. This interpretation is consistent with the recitation of a “predetermined” value, in that the value is determined in advance rather than dynamically during the stop process.
Claims 7, 9, 10, and 13 each recite a user-operable setting governing the switchover threshold. Claim 7 recites that “a setting of whether or not the injection control unit uses the value offset from the set value of the pressure at the time of start of the holding pressure process to the high pressure side by the predetermined amount is switchable”. Claim 9 recites that “a setting of whether or not the injection control unit switches the stop process to the holding pressure process when the actual value of the pressure reaches the predetermined value is switchable”. Claim 10 recites a display control unit and an input section for inputting the setting of claim 9. Claim 13 recites a display unit that displays an input section configured to receive a setting for “selecting whether to switch the stop process to the holding pressure process when the actual value of the pressure reaches the predetermined value”.
These recitations are interpreted as adding a feature to the apparatus of claim 1, namely a user-operable setting that selects the switchover threshold, rather than as negating or removing the switching for which the injection control unit of claim 1 is configured. This interpretation is consistent with the specification, which describes an input section for selecting whether the timing setting unit 718 uses the set value P1 or the offset value (P1 + ΔP) ([0134]-[0135]). It is also consistent with the treatment of claim 1 as an apparatus claim, in which the recited switching is a capability for which the injection control unit is configured and which a user-operable setting may govern. See MPEP 2114(II).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites that the injection control unit switches the stop process to the holding pressure process “when the actual value of the pressure in the stop process reaches a predetermined value set based on a change in the actual value of the pressure in the stop process caused by a control delay”. Claim 12 contains a corresponding recitation. This language is difficult to parse for two reasons. First, the predetermined value and the basis on which that value is set are recited within a single uninterrupted clause. Second, the phrase “the actual value of the pressure in the stop process” appears twice in immediate succession, once as the monitored quantity that reaches the predetermined value and once within the clause describing how the predetermined value is set, which obscures whether the predetermined value is determined in advance or recalculated from the pressure monitored during the current shot.
To improve clarity, it is suggested that the recitation in claim 1 be rephrased as, for example: “when the actual value of the pressure in the stop process reaches a predetermined value, wherein the predetermined value is set in advance based on a change in the pressure in the stop process caused by a control delay”. A corresponding amendment to claim 12 is suggested. Additionally, note the Claim Interpretation section above, which discusses the same language, particularly that “predetermined” is understood to mean that the value is calculated in advance of the current stop process.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites that “the predetermined value is a value set by a user or a value calculated on the basis of a user’s setting”. As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, the predetermined value corresponds to the value (P1 + ΔP) offset from the set value P1 of the pressure at the time of start of the holding pressure process to a high pressure side by the predetermined amount ΔP. The specification does not describe the predetermined value (P1 + ΔP), or the offset amount (ΔP), as being set by a user.
Rather, the specification describes only the set value P1 as user-set, stating that “the set value P1 is a value set by a user in the present embodiment, but may be a value calculated on the basis of a user’s setting” ([0137]). The offset amount ΔP, by contrast, “is set in advance on the basis of the amount of reduction in an actual value in the pressure that is caused by a control delay (time lag), and is stored in advance in the storage medium 702” ([0129]). The specification does not describe the predetermined value (P1 + ΔP) itself as being set by a user. It attributes those characteristics only to the set value P1. Accordingly, the specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession, at the time of filing, of a predetermined value that is set by a user, as recited in claim 2.
To advance prosecution, it is suggested that claim 2 be amended to re-associate the user-setting language with the set value of the pressure at the time of start of the holding pressure process, consistent with the original disclosure, for example: “wherein the predetermined value is based on a set value of the pressure at a time of start of the holding pressure process, and the set value is a value set by a user or a value calculated on the basis of a user’s setting”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011-183704 (“Yamashita”) (cited in an IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita discloses a control device of an injection molding machine (the controller 26; see Figure 1 and [0011], [0015], and [0017] of the provided translation) including an injection member that pushes a molding material (the screw 20, which advances within the heating cylinder 21 to inject resin into the mold; see Figure 1, [0011], and [0012]) and an injection drive source that moves the injection member (the servo motor 11 for injection; see Figure 1 and [0011]), the control device comprising:
an injection control unit that controls a timing for switching from a stop process for stopping a movement of the injection member to a holding pressure process for controlling a pressure acting on the molding material from the injection member, the movement of the injection member being stopped for an entire duration of the stop process (The injection molding machine switches from an injection process to a holding pressure process at an appropriate timing (see [0005]). In the injection process, the setting speed of the screw 20 is reduced from a first set speed to a second set speed, and the second set speed may be zero (see [0021]). In the example of Figure 3, the second set speed is set to zero, such that the forward speed of the screw 20 decreases toward zero and the screw is stopped (see [0030]). The period during which the second set speed is zero and the screw 20 is stopped, prior to the switchover, constitutes a stop process during which the movement of the injection member is stopped for its entire duration. The controller 26 switches to the holding pressure process, in which the resin pressure is maintained at the set pressure, when the resin pressure reaches a certain value (see [0021]-[0025]).); and
a pressure monitoring unit that monitors an actual value of the pressure in the stop process (the load cell 18 detects the resin pressure at the front of the screw 20, and the controller 26 monitors this pressure while performing speed control at the second set speed; see [0012] and [0021]-[0023]),
wherein the injection control unit switches the stop process to the holding pressure process at a timing set when the actual value of the pressure in the stop process reaches a predetermined value set based on a change in the actual value of the pressure in the stop process caused by a control delay (The controller 26 switches from speed control to pressure control when the detected resin pressure reaches a predetermined pressure (see [0021]-[0025]). Per [0035], considering the responsiveness of the switch, the switchover is performed when the resin pressure drops to a predetermined pressure slightly higher than the set pressure. The responsiveness of the switch is a control delay, i.e., a lag in the response of the switchover. Setting the predetermined pressure slightly higher than the set pressure sets the predetermined value based on the change in the pressure (the continued drop in the pressure) that occurs during the control delay.).
Yamashita discloses the stop process in which the screw is stopped (see [0021] and [0030]) and, separately, the setting of the switchover threshold to a predetermined pressure slightly higher than the set pressure in consideration of the responsiveness of the switch (see [0035]), the latter being described as a modification of the embodiment described above, which includes the zero-speed example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the responsiveness-based offset threshold of [0035] in the zero-speed embodiment of Yamashita, as Yamashita expressly contemplates this modification of that embodiment, in order to switch to the holding pressure process at an appropriate timing and to prevent the resin pressure from dropping below the set pressure and the attendant sink marks, as taught by Yamashita (see [0033]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita discloses that the predetermined value is a value set by a user or a value calculated on the basis of a user’s setting (The set pressure is pre-set by the operator via the input device 35 (see [0023]). The predetermined value, i.e., the predetermined pressure slightly higher than the set pressure per [0035], is thus calculated on the basis of the user-set set pressure.).
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita discloses that the injection control unit switches the stop process to the holding pressure process in an n-th shot when the actual value of the pressure in the stop process of the n-th shot reaches a value offset from a set value of the pressure at a time of start of the holding pressure process to a high pressure side by a predetermined amount (Per [0035], considering the responsiveness of the switch, the switchover is performed when the resin pressure drops to a predetermined pressure slightly higher than the set pressure. That predetermined pressure is a value offset from the set value of the pressure at the start of the holding pressure process (the set pressure; see [0023] and [0025]) and is offset to a high pressure side by a predetermined amount. Yamashita performs this switchover in each molding cycle, including the n-th shot.).
Regarding claim 7, Yamashita discloses switching from speed control to pressure control both when the resin pressure drops to the set pressure (see [0025]) and, in consideration of the responsiveness of the switch, when the resin pressure drops to a predetermined pressure slightly higher than the set pressure (see [0035]). Yamashita does not explicitly disclose that a setting of whether or not the injection control unit uses the value offset from the set value of the pressure at the time of start of the holding pressure process to the high pressure side by the predetermined amount is switchable. However, it is well known in the art to provide a computing or control device with optional features that can be selectively enabled or disabled by a user. Because Yamashita discloses both the offset threshold ([0035]) and the non-offset threshold ([0025]) as alternatives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a user-selectable setting of whether or not the offset value is used, as a common and routine design choice.
Regarding claim 9, the claimed setting selects whether the predetermined value (i.e., P1 + ΔP) governs the switchover. Although not identical in scope to claim 7, the same logic applies. Yamashita discloses switching when the resin pressure reaches the predetermined value, i.e., the predetermined pressure slightly higher than the set pressure (see [0035]), and, alternatively, switching when the resin pressure drops to the set pressure (see [0025]). Yamashita does not explicitly disclose that a setting of whether or not the injection control unit switches the stop process to the holding pressure process when the actual value of the pressure reaches the predetermined value is switchable. However, it is well known in the art to provide a control device with optional features that can be selectively enabled or disabled by a user. Because Yamashita discloses both the switchover at the predetermined (offset) value ([0035]) and the switchover at the set pressure ([0025]) as alternatives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a user-selectable setting of whether or not the switching occurs when the actual value of the pressure reaches the predetermined value, as a common and routine design choice.
Regarding claim 11, Yamashita discloses an injection molding machine (the injection molding machine 1; see Figure 1 and [0011]) comprising:
the control device according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1);
the injection member (the screw 20; see Figure 1 and [0011]); and
the injection drive source (the servo motor 11; see Figure 1 and [0011]).
Regarding claim 12, Yamashita discloses a method of controlling an injection molding machine including an injection member that pushes a molding material and an injection drive source that moves the injection member (the screw 20 and the servo motor 11; see Figure 1 and [0011] along with the rejection of claim 1), the method comprising:
a step of controlling a timing for switching from a stop process for stopping a movement of the injection member to a holding pressure process for controlling a pressure acting on the molding material from the injection member, the movement of the injection member being stopped for an entire duration of the stop process (see [0021]-[0025] and [0030] along with the rejection of claim 1); and
a step of monitoring an actual value of the pressure in the stop process (the load cell 18 monitors the resin pressure; see [0012] and [0021]-[0023] along with the rejection of claim 1), wherein switching from the stop process to the holding pressure process is performed when the actual value of the pressure in the stop process reaches a predetermined value set based on a change in the actual value of the pressure in the stop process caused by a control delay (see [0021]-[0025] and [0035] along with the rejection of claim 1).
Claims 8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita, as applied above, and further in view of US 2015/0140148 (“Komiya”) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, please see the rejection of claim 7. It is well known in the art to provide an injection molding machine with a display and input means to enable the user to set parameters, select settings, and the like. For example, Komiya relates to a controller for an injection molding machine that provides an intermediate process between the injection and packing processes (see the abstract and [0039]), and Komiya discloses an LCD/MDI 25 with a display unit (see [0036] and Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Yamashita with a display unit and input section to which the setting of claim 7 is input, since providing a user interface for selectable settings is a common and routine design choice in injection molding machine controllers.
Regarding claim 10, please see the rejection of claim 9. It is well known in the art to provide an injection molding machine with a display and input means to enable the user to set parameters, select settings, and the like. For example, Komiya relates to a controller for an injection molding machine that provides an intermediate process between the injection and packing processes (see the abstract and [0039]), and Komiya discloses an LCD/MDI 25 with a display unit (see [0036] and Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Yamashita with a display unit and input section to which the setting of claim 9 is input, since providing a user interface for selectable settings is a common and routine design choice in injection molding machine controllers.
Regarding claim 13, the recited setting is the same setting addressed in the rejection of claim 9 (selecting whether to switch the stop process to the holding pressure process when the actual value of the pressure reaches the predetermined value). Please see the rejection of claim 9. Additionally, it is well known in the art to provide an injection molding machine with a display and input means to enable the user to set parameters, select settings, and the like. For example, Komiya relates to a controller for an injection molding machine that provides an intermediate process between the injection and packing processes (see the abstract and [0039]), and Komiya discloses an LCD/MDI 25 with a display unit (see [0036] and Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Yamashita with a display unit and input section to which the claimed setting is input, since providing a user interface for selectable settings is a common and routine design choice in injection molding machine controllers.
Conclusion
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