Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/448,741

CONTROL DEVICE OF INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE, INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE, AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 11, 2023
Examiner
SANDERS, JAMES M
Art Unit
1743
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
302 granted / 547 resolved
-9.8% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
564
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
58.4%
+18.4% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 547 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION This is a final Office Action in response to a non-final Office Action reply filed 11/6/25 in which claims 1-2 and 6-8 were amended. 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodick Co Ltd (JP 2013-103401, already of record). For claim 1, Sodick Co Ltd teaches a control device of an injection molding machine including an injection member that presses a molding material and an injection drive source that moves the injection member (Fig. 7, [0024]), the control device comprising: an injection control unit that controls, in a holding pressure process of controlling a pressure acting on the molding material from the injection member, the injection drive source based on a set value of the pressure and on an actual value of the pressure ([0036]). Though Sodick Co Ltd does not teach the injection control unit uses, instead of the set value of the pressure, a value obtained by subtracting a subtraction amount that increases over time from the set value of the pressure so that the actual value of the pressure gradually decreases with respect to the set value of the pressure, or uses, instead of the actual value of the pressure, a value obtained by adding an addition amount that increases over time to the actual value of the pressure so that the actual value of the pressure gradually decreases with respect to the set value of the pressure, Sodick Co Ltd does teach the injection control unit uses, instead of the set value of the pressure, a value obtained by adjusting the set value of the pressure so that the actual value of the pressure gradually decreases with respect to the set value of the pressure (Fig. 3, [0042]-[0044]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the injection control unit use, instead of the set value of the pressure, a value obtained by subtracting a subtraction amount that increases over time from the set value of the pressure so that the actual value of the pressure gradually decreases with respect to the set value of the pressure, or use, instead of the actual value of the pressure, a value obtained by adding an addition amount that increases over time to the actual value of the pressure so that the actual value of the pressure gradually decreases with respect to the set value of the pressure. For claim 2, Sodick Co Ltd teaches a control device of an injection molding machine including an injection member that presses a molding material and an injection drive source that moves the injection member (see citation above). Though Sodick Co Ltd does not teach the control device comprising: an injection control unit that controls, in a holding pressure process of controlling a pressure acting on the molding material from the injection member, the injection drive source based on a current command value or a torque command value of the injection drive source and on a current actual value or a torque actual value of the injection drive source, wherein the injection control unit uses, instead of the current command value or the torque command value, a value obtained by subtracting a subtraction amount that increases over time from the current command value or from the torque command value so that an actual value of the pressure gradually decreases with respect to a set value of the pressure, or uses, instead of the current actual value or the torque actual value, a value obtained by adding an addition amount that increases over time to the current actual value or to the torque actual value so that the actual value of the pressure gradually decreases with respect to the set value of the pressure, Sodick Co Ltd does teach, in addition to the invention discussed above for claim 1, if the injection drive device is a motor, the input current or rotational torque of the motor may be detected by a current measuring instrument or torque measuring instrument ([0024]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control device comprise: an injection control unit that controls, in a holding pressure process of controlling a pressure acting on the molding material from the injection member, the injection drive source based on a current command value or a torque command value of the injection drive source and on a current actual value or a torque actual value of the injection drive source, wherein the injection control unit uses, instead of the current command value or the torque command value, a value obtained by subtracting a subtraction amount that increases over time from the current command value or from the torque command value so that an actual value of the pressure gradually decreases with respect to a set value of the pressure, or uses, instead of the current actual value or the torque actual value, a value obtained by adding an addition amount that increases over time to the current actual value or to the torque actual value so that the actual value of the pressure gradually decreases with respect to the set value of the pressure. For claims 4-5, Sodick Co Ltd teaches an injection molding machine that would correspondingly include the control device according to either claims 1 or 2; the injection member; and the injection drive source (Fig. 7, [0020]). For claims 6-7, Sodick Co Ltd teaches a method of controlling an injection molding machine that would correspond to the control devices of either claims 1 or 2 (see citations above). Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodick Co Ltd (JP 2013-103401, already of record) in view of Chang et al (US 9555571, already of record). Sodick Co Ltd teaches the invention as discussed above. Sodick Co Ltd does not teach a display control unit or a display control process that displays a setting screen used for setting a decrease in the actual value of the pressure with respect to the set value of the pressure on a display device. However, in a related field of endeavor pertaining to a method for operating an injection molding machine Chang et al teach a display control unit or a display control process that displays a setting screen used for setting a decrease in the actual value of the pressure with respect to the set value of the pressure on a display device (Figs 13, 15 & 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chang et al with those of Sodick Co Ltd since Sodick Co Ltd is silent to such operational basics and one would desire to use proven modern means for inputting machine instructions. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/25 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 JAMES SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-7007. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11-7. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on 571-270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JAMES SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 11, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 06, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 19, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 01, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 05, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602095
MOVING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594698
MOULD FOR PARTICLE FOAM MOULDING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582174
MECHANICAL CONTROL SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ADAPTIVE APPAREL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570486
MOLDED PART, MOLDED PART SUPPORTING STRUCTURE, AND MOLDED PART CONVEYANCE METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12552090
HYBRID 3D PRINTER THAT USES PHOTO-CURABLE MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+26.8%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 547 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month