DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 3-4 are objected to for depending from a rejected base claim.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Notification of Replacement of Lower-Level Substrates of an Industrial Machine Based on Comparison of Identification Numbers.
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.
Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the instruction generated by the first lower-level substrate" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 previously recites “the first lower-level substrate is configured to generate a first instruction”. It is unclear if “the instruction generated by the first lower-level substrate” in claim 10 is referring to the “first instruction” of claim 8 or to a different instruction. Appropriate qualifiers for the “instruction generated by the first lower-level substrate” and the “instruction generated by the third lower-level substrate” should be utilized in claims 8 and 10 for clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HOTTA (US 2024/0092003 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, HOTTA teaches an industrial machine (Fig. 1) comprising: a higher-level substrate; (¶ 19, Fig. 3 control device 700) and lower-level substrates communicatively connected to the higher-level substrate, (¶ 19, 110-111, Fig. 3 lower-level substrates 341, 351, 170 communicatively coupled with the higher-level substrate 700. Also see ¶ 96-98, which discusses the replaceable injection molding machine components having storage media (i.e. lower-level substrates) that communicate with the control device (i.e. the higher-level substrate).)
wherein the higher-level substrate is configured to obtain identification information from each of the lower-level substrates at first timing, obtain identification information from each of the lower-level substrates at second timing following the first timing, (¶ 115, 134-136, 145: The controller 700 acquires identification information from each of the lower-level components and stores the identification information for each component as well as sensor data comprising load information for each component in association with the identification information. Since a history is being maintained, the identification information is being acquired at a first timing and at a second timing following the first timing. For example (¶ 136), the identification information for each component is obtained each time the power supply of the injection molding machine is turned on.)
and when the identification information obtained at the first timing is different from the identification information obtained at the second timing, notify a user of substrate replacement of that lower-level substrate for each lower-level substrate. (¶ 134-136, 146-149, Fig. 7: If there is a mismatch between the currently obtained identification information of each component (i.e. the second timing) and the historical identification information of each component (i.e. the first timing), then the user is notified that a replacement of a component has been detected, as illustrated in Fig. 7.)
Regarding Claim 2, HOTTA further teaches further comprising a storage, wherein when the higher-level substrate determines that substrate replacement has been carried out, the higher-level substrate is configured to cause the storage to store information on substrate replacement. (¶ 115-117, 151-153: The control device has a storage (Fig. 3, 702) and when the control device determines that a lower-level component has been replaced, the controller stores information pertaining to the replacement in the storage, including the updated identification number.)
Regarding Claim 5, HOTTA further teaches wherein the first timing is timing of shipping of the industrial machine, (¶ 117, Fig. 4: The initial timing when identification information is obtained would be when the components are initially attached, which would have reasonably occurred at shipping of the machine. In the example of Fig 4, this would be a data of 9/12/2008.)
and the second timing is timing of start-up of the industrial machine based on supply of electric power to the industrial machine. (¶ 136: The identification information is obtained whenever the injection molding machine is powered on, which corresponds to a second timing. In the example of Fig. 4 and ¶ 117 noted above, the first timing, corresponding to the plasticizing motor substrate, would be 9/12/2008, which is when the component was initially attached (i.e. at shipping) and the second timing would be any date after that, with a positive result of the mismatch happening on 12/4/2013, resulting in detection of replacement.)
Regarding Claim 6, HOTTA further teaches wherein the first timing is timing of start-up of the industrial machine based on supply of electric power to the industrial machine, and the second timing is timing of start-up of the industrial machine based on supply of electric power to the industrial machine after the first timing. (¶ 136: The identification information of each component is obtained every time the industrial machine is powered on. Therefore, the information is obtained at a first timing when the machine is turned on and at a second timing after the machine is turned on and off again.)
Regarding Claim 7, HOTTA further teaches wherein the higher-level substrate is configured to receive inspection data on a substrate operation from one of the lower- level substrates at the first timing and the second timing, (¶ 115, 118-119, 122-123: Inspection data, including sensor data and load measurement data, regarding the operation of the injection molding machine components is received by the controller from each of the components at each of the timings of operation of the machine.)
and perform compensation processing for compensating for the substrate operation when the inspection data is different between the first timing and the second timing. (¶ 139-141, Fig. 5: “Compensation processing” is performed by detecting the change in the total value of the load between each timing, updating a display of the total load for each component, recommending a replacement of a component when a load exceeds a first threshold, and stopping operation of the machine if the load exceeds a second threshold.)
Regarding Claim 8, HOTTA further teaches wherein the industrial machine is an injection molding machine, (¶ 19) the industrial machine further includes a servo motor to be used for clamping of a mold, (¶ 24, 31, 53, 89-91, Fig. 1 motors 160, 183: Motors, such as a servo motor, are used for the clamping and other steps of the mold injection process.)
the lower-level substrates include a first lower-level substrate that controls the servo motor (¶ 24, 97, Figs. 1, 3 “motion conversion mechanism 170” and “mold clamping motor encoder” 161 include substrates that drive, i.e. controls, the motor of the clamping and injection processes according to instructions from the controller 700.),
and the first lower-level substrate is configured to generate a first instruction for control of the servo motor in accordance with an instruction from the higher-level substrate. (¶ 33-34, 49, 76: The control device issues instructions to the lower-level substrate devices to drive the motors of the clamping and injection processes according.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOTTA (US 2024/0092003 A1) in view of KODAIRA (US 2022/0143888 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, HOTTA teaches all the limitations of claim 8, on which claim 9 depends.
HOTTA further teaches further comprising: a safety door attached to a housing that covers the mold; and an opening sensor that detects an open and closed state of the safety door, (¶ 137, 158-160: A determination unit detects whether a “maintenance cover” (i.e. a safety door) of the injection molding machine is attached or detached (i.e. opened or closed) based on a detection value from a sensor (¶ 158).)
HOTTA does not teach wherein the lower-level substrates include a second lower-level substrate that receives a detection value from the opening sensor, and the first lower-level substrate controls the servo motor based on information indicating the open and closed state of the safety door received from the second lower- level substrate.
However, KODAIRA, which is similarly directed to an injection molding machine, including mechanism for stopping operation of the machine and a “safety door attached to a housing that covers the mold” (¶ 85), teaches wherein the lower-level substrates include a second lower-level substrate that receives a detection value from the opening sensor, and the first lower-level substrate controls the servo motor based on information indicating the open and closed state of the safety door received from the second lower- level substrate. (¶ 84-86, Fig. 6: A mold door 390A/B is detected to be opened or closed by a sensor. A “conveyor controller” 42A/B is a second lower-level substrate that receives the detection value. If the door is opened, the controllers do not allow operation of the conveyor of the injection molding machine (i.e. a motor would be prohibited from operating). If the door is closed, the injection molding machine can operate as normal. It would have been obvious for this to involve a communication between the controller that receives the value from the sensor and the drive unit of the motor (i.e. communication between the substrates).)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the operation of an injection molding machine including detection of an open state of a maintenance door and stopping the machine under certain conditions, taught by HOTTA (¶ 139-141) by stopping the machine in accordance with a detection of the open state of the door as taught by KODAIRA (¶ 85) for the safety of the operator. Since the references are similarly directed to the operation of injection molding machines, the combination would have yielded predictable results and would have amounted to stopping operation of the machine (a feature that both references teach) in response to detection of the open state of a door (a feature that both references teach), as supported by the teachings of KODAIRA, including improving the safety of machine operation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOTTA (US 2024/0092003 A1) in view of CATOEN (US 2011/0106285 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, HOTTA teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 11 depends.
HOTTA further teaches wherein the higher-level substrate is configured to obtain information indicating the identification information from each of the lower-level substrates at the first timing and the second timing.
HOTTA does not teach time of manufacturing of each lower-level substrate in addition to the identification information.
However, CATOEN, which is similarly directed to maintaining information regarding components of an injection molding machine, teaches recording time of manufacturing of each lower-level substrate in addition to the identification information for components of an injection molding machine. (¶ 60, 75: A user interface presents information about components of an injection molding machine corresponding to identifiers of each component. One of the types of data presented for each component includes “a manufacture date”.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the obtaining of identification information of lower-level components of an injection molding machine in order to notify a user of a replacement of a component taught by HOTTA by including time of manufacturing information in the information presented to the user as taught by CATOEN. Since the references are similarly directed to monitoring data concerning injection molding machines, the combination would have yielded predictable result by including a recording and presentation of such information along with the information already presented by HOTTA. CATOEN (¶ 79-80) further suggests that including detailed information, including manufacturing date, and recording information over time for each component of the machine, it would lead to improved operation of an injection molding assembly by being utilized by an operator observing the performance of the machine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations:
“wherein safety standards for protection of a user are defined in advance for the industrial machine, information indicating whether each of the lower-level substrates relates to the safety standards is stored in the storage for each of lower-level substrates, when the higher-level substrate determines that substrate replacement has been carried out, the higher-level substrate is configured to cause the display apparatus to show a warning when a removed substrate does not relate to the safety standards, and stop an operation of the industrial machine when the removed substrate relates to the safety standards. ”
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations:
“wherein the lower-level substrates include a third lower-level substrate that generates an instruction for control of the servo motor in accordance with an instruction from the higher-level substrate, the third lower-level substrate is configured to transmit the instruction generated by the third lower-level substrate to the first lower-level substrate, and when the instruction generated by the first lower-level substrate is inconsistent with the instruction generated by the third lower-level substrate, the first lower-level substrate is configured to deactivate the servo motor.”
These limitations, in particular combination as recited by claims 3 and 10, define the patentability of the claims. Claim 4 would be allowable for at least the same rationale due to its dependency on claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arita (US 2022/0371246 A1) teaches detecting mismatch between version numbers of slave components in an injection component machine by a master component and stopping operation of the machine. (¶ 43, 155, 186, 202-203 237)
Tsukada (US 2022/0134622 A1) teaches notifying a user when there is a mismatch between the appropriate mold and appropriate material used for an injection molding process based on identification information. (Fig. 2, ¶ 54-55)
Ikeda (US 2021/0200181 A1) teaches notifying a user of additions and replacements to components of an injection molding machine based on detecting a difference between identification number of the components stored on PCBs corresponding to the component. (¶ 62-82)
Komine (US 2013/0325288 A1) teaches updating component IDs of an industrial machine. (¶ 150, Fig. 14)
Tanaka (US 2020/0307054 A1) teaches confirming identification codes of components of an injection molding machine match registered values using a QR scanner. (Fig. 9)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 EST.
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, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights