DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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
Applicant’s amendments, filed 06/16/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1 has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-9 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-9 fall within category of process.
Regarding Claims 1-9
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of calculating the melt density.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. An ultrasonic online nondestructive measurement method for a melt density in injection molding, comprising the following steps:
(1) mounting an ultrasonic probe on an outer side wall of a mold cavity, and emitting an ultrasonic wave toward a polymer melt in the mold cavity;
(2) collecting reflection echoes of two surfaces of the melt in contact with a mold, wherein the reflection echo of the surface close to the probe is denoted as U1, and the other reflection echo is denoted as U2;
(3) calculating an ultrasonic propagation velocity in the polymer melt based on time domain signals of the reflection echoes U1 and U2;
calculating an acoustic impedance of the polymer melt based on frequency domain signal amplitude spectra of the reflection echo U1 and U2; and
(4) calculating the melt density based on p =Z/c and the calculated ultrasonic propagation velocity and acoustic impedance, wherein Z is the acoustic impedance of the polymer melt, and c is the ultrasonic propagation velocity in the polymer melt..
performing online process monitoring and optimization of injection molding based on the calculated melt density.
The italicized limitations above represent combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “calculating an ultrasonic propagation [..]; calculating an acoustic impedance [..]; calculating the melt density [..];optimization of injection molding[..]” are of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2).
For example, the limitations “performing online process monitoring[..]” is mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment).
Limitations (are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional first element is “collecting reflection echoes of two surfaces of the melt in contact with a mold, wherein the reflection echo of the surface close to the probe is denoted as U1, and the other reflection echo is denoted as U2” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
For example, additional 2nd element is “mounting an ultrasonic probe on an outer side wall of a mold cavity, and emitting an ultrasonic wave toward a polymer melt in the mold cavity” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a generic data collection system of ultrasonic online nondestructive measurement . Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the “additional element” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic system with extra solution activity. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For example, the limitation of “mounting an ultrasonic probe on an outer side wall of a mold cavity, and emitting an ultrasonic wave toward a polymer melt in the mold cavity”, generic system, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d))
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2-9
Dependent claims 2-9 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-9 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2-9: mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jen et al. (US 2004/0037742) in views of Hertz et al. (In-line Process and Material Property Measurement in Injection Moulding - a Theoretical Review, 9 November 2022) (Examiner cited prior arts ) and Xia et al. (Integrated measurement of ultrasonic parameters for polymeric materials via full spectrum analysis, 2018).
Regarding claim 1: Jen an ultrasonic online nondestructive measurement method for a melt density in injection molding, comprising the following steps(abstract):
(1) mounting an ultrasonic probe (UT fig. 2) on an outer side wall of a mold cavity(Steel A: fig. 2), and emitting an ultrasonic wave toward a polymer melt in the mold cavity(incident wave: fig. 2);
(2) collecting reflection echoes of two surfaces of the melt in contact with a mold (reflected wave: fig. 2), wherein the reflection echo of the surface close to the probe is denoted as U1(L2: fig. 2), and the other reflection echo is denoted as U2(L4: fig. 2);
PNG
media_image1.png
586
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(3) calculating an ultrasonic propagation velocity (Cp: [0030]) in the polymer melt based on time domain signals of the reflection echoes U1(L2: fig. 2) and U2(L4: fig. 2);
calculating an acoustic impedance (Z: [0028])of the polymer melt based on the reflection echo U1(L2(Z1): fig. 2) and U2 (L4: fig. 2(Z2)); and
Jen does not explicitly teaches calculating the melt density based on p =Z/c and the calculated ultrasonic propagation velocity and acoustic impedance, wherein Z is the acoustic impedance of the polymer melt, and c is the ultrasonic propagation velocity in the polymer melt; performing online process monitoring and optimization of injection molding based on the calculated melt density. .
However, Hertz teaches calculating the melt density based on p =Z/c (ρ: equation 28, page 954)and the calculated ultrasonic propagation velocity (c: equation 28, page 954 ) and acoustic impedance(Z: equation 28, page 954 ), wherein Z is the acoustic impedance of the polymer melt, and c is the ultrasonic propagation velocity in the polymer melt(section 5, page 954); performing online process monitoring and optimization of injection molding based on the calculated melt density(in-line Melt Density Measurement Methodologies, compare results of melt density obtained in-line with solidified samples cut out: pages 954-955, section 5; pages 957-958, section 7.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Jen, calculating the melt density based on p =Z/c and the calculated ultrasonic propagation velocity and acoustic impedance, wherein Z is the acoustic impedance of the polymer melt, and c is the ultrasonic propagation velocity in the polymer melt; performing online process monitoring and optimization of injection molding based on the calculated melt density, as taught by Hertz, so as to monitor in-line in injection moulding.
The modified Jen silent about calculating an acoustic impedance of the polymer melt (polymer martial based on the reflection echo U1 and U2 .
Xia teaches calculating an acoustic impedance of the polymer melt (e.g.polymer martial) based on the reflection echo U1 and U2(equation 1-3, section 2.2, page 427; fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of the modified Jen, calculating an acoustic impedance of the polymer melt (polymer martial based on the reflection echo U1 and U2, as taught by Xia, so as to measure ultrasonic parameters and characterize flexible materials with high accuracy.
Regarding Claim 2 Jen further teaches a method for calculating the ultrasonic propagation velocity c is:
PNG
media_image2.png
62
94
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein h is a thickness of the polymer melt in an ultrasonic propagation direction, and at is a time difference between the reflection echoes U1 and U2, and is calculated by using a cross-correlation method from the time domain signals of the reflection echoes U1 and U2(Cp:[0030]).
Regarding Claim 3. Jen silent about wherein the acoustic impedance of the polymer melt is obtained by solving an ultrasonic propagation proportionality coefficient, an acoustic impedance coefficient of a back mold material, and an acoustic impedance coefficient of a front mold material.
However, Xia teaches the acoustic impedance of the polymer material (melt) is obtained by solving an ultrasonic propagation proportionality coefficient, an acoustic impedance coefficient of a back mold material, and an acoustic impedance coefficient of a front mold material(section 2.2, equations 1-3, page 427).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Jen, the acoustic impedance of the polymer material (melt) is obtained by solving an ultrasonic propagation proportionality coefficient, an acoustic impedance coefficient of a back mold material, and an acoustic impedance coefficient of a front mold material, as taught by Xia, so as to measure ultrasonic parameters and characterize flexible materials with high accuracy.
Regarding Claim 4. Xia further teaches wherein the acoustic impedance Z =Z1 of the polymer melt is obtained by solving the following formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
48
160
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein | | is an operation of solving an absolute value; K is the ultrasonic propagation proportionality coefficient; and Zo, Z1 and Z2 are sequentially acoustic impedance coefficients of the back mold material, a melt material and the front mold material in the ultrasonic propagation direction(section 2.2, equation 3, page 427).
Regarding Claim 5. Jen silent about the ultrasonic propagation proportionality coefficient is obtained by fitting a relationship between a transfer function and a frequency o of ultrasonic echo signals.
However, Xia teaches the ultrasonic propagation proportionality coefficient is obtained by fitting a relationship between a transfer function and a frequency o of ultrasonic echo signals(section 2.2, equation 4, page 427).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Jen, the ultrasonic propagation proportionality coefficient is obtained by fitting a relationship between a transfer function and a frequency o of ultrasonic echo signals, as taught by Xia, so as to measure ultrasonic parameters and characterize flexible materials with high accuracy.
Regarding Claim 6. Xia further teaches wherein the relationship is as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
164
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.(section 2.2, equation 4, page 427)
Regarding Claim 7. Jen further teaches the ultrasonic probe is arranged perpendicular to a flow direction of the polymer melt, and a side of the polymer melt receiving an ultrasonic signal has a plane structure perpendicular to the ultrasonic signal(UT: fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8. Jen silent about the ultrasonic propagation proportionality coefficient is obtained by fitting a relationship between a transfer function and a frequency w of ultrasonic echo signals.
However, Xia teaches the ultrasonic propagation proportionality coefficient is obtained by fitting a relationship between a transfer function and a frequency w of ultrasonic echo signals(section 2.2, equation 4, page 427).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Jen, the ultrasonic propagation proportionality coefficient is obtained by fitting a relationship between a transfer function and a frequency w of ultrasonic echo signals, as taught by Xia, so as to measure ultrasonic parameters and characterize flexible materials with high accuracy.
Regarding Claim 9. Xia further teaches wherein the relationship is as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
176
606
media_image5.png
Greyscale
..(section 2.2, equation 4, page 427)
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claims 1, The applicant did not agree with it, see, pages 5-7. Applicant Argus that “The Claims Are Not Directed to a abstract idea; The Claims Merely Involve a Judicial Exception; The Claims Integrate the Alleged Judicial Exception into a Practical Application”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because the amended limitations of claims, specifically , 1 represent combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment)). Therefore, the limitations, specifically claim1, above fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. In view of the above, the two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic device with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the additional element does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting an analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect 103, see pages 7-10 has been considered and the Examiner admitted that Jen does not explicitly teaches calculating the melt density based on p =Z/c and the calculated ultrasonic propagation velocity and acoustic impedance, wherein Z is the acoustic impedance of the polymer melt, and c is the ultrasonic propagation velocity in the polymer melt; performing online process monitoring and optimization of injection molding based on the calculated melt density. However, Hertz (the Examiner cited prior art) teaches the above limitation and also amended limitation also. See the rejection above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Kariminejad et al. (Ultrasound Sensors for Process Monitoring in Injection Moulding, 2021).
b) Thomas et al. (US 2004/0025592) disclose An injection molding apparatus is disclosed that includes an injection mold, a mold injector, and means for monitoring the injection mold process using acoustic energy. The injection mold includes a cavity for receiving an injection mold material, such as a polymer as injected via the mold injector. The monitoring system includes an acoustic energy generator, an ultrasonic crystal, and an energy monitoring device. The acoustic energy generator produces continuous acoustic energy to be non-invasively applied to the injection mold as the polymer is delivered into the mold. The energy monitoring device monitors changes in dynamic parameters of a resulting continuous resonant frequency established by the acoustic energy generator through the ultrasonic crystal. The ultrasonic crystal serves also as a transducer to receive an output signal from the mold to be delivered to the energy monitoring device. It is this output signal that is processed to determine dynamic parameters that change based on the change of the continuous resonant frequency. This change of dynamic parameters can identify at least one characteristic of the polymer such that refined control of the injection process may be achieved by monitoring such characteristics through the continuous wave resonant frequency monitoring approach applied by the monitoring system.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights