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 .
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 11/30/2023
Claims 1-8 are pending
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-202187, filed on 12/19/2022.
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(s) 1, 5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa et al. USPGPUB 2013/0103184 A1 (hereinafter Morikawa) in view of Aiba et al. USPGPUB 2021/0268708 A1 (hereinafter Aiba).
Regarding claim 1, Morikawa teaches a display unit of an injection molding machine (Fig. 1-2, Par. [0068] “The injection molding machine 1 according to this example has: a molding mechanism portion 10 which molds an article by mechanical operation; a microcomputer portion 20 which performs operation control of the molding mechanism portion 10, etc.; a touch panel which serves both as a display portion 30 which is an output interface for an operator, and as an input portion 40 which is an input interface for receiving an input from the Operator”) including an injection member that is provided in a cylinder heating a molding material (Par. [0088] “The temperature setting screen 211 is a screen for setting heating conditions of band heaters wound around an injection cylinder and heating conditions of a hopper”) and an injection drive source that causes the injection member to advance (Par. [0070] “The microcomputer portion 20 has: a respective drive portion input/output portion 21 which inputs/outputs a signal to each motor or each encoder; a respective drive portion control portion 22 which performs control, etc. of the signal inputted/outputted from the respective drive portion input/output portion 21 (i.e. control of each drive portion)”) to fill an inside of a mold unit with the molding material (Par. [0069] “injection unit 11 is used for plasticizing a resin material (pellet) and injecting the molten resin into a cavity of the mold 121),
wherein a screen including a selection part (Fig. 5-36, Par. [0068] “a touch panel which serves both as a display portion 30 which is an output interface for an operator, and as an input portion 40 which is an input interface for receiving an input from the Operator”), which receives a selection of settings (Par. [0009] “selecting a desired setting item from the setting
screen and inputting a setting value in the selected setting item, with respect to all necessary setting items.”), is displayed in an injection process for controlling a velocity of the injection member (Par. [0095] “As shown in FIG. 26, heading fields of screw position, velocity, pressure, primary injection time, rotational velocity, plasticization time, cushioning quantity, stroke monitoring maximum value and injection, heading fields of screw position, velocity, pressure, … injection position, injection velocity,”) or a pressure acting on the molding material from the injection member (Par. [0095] “The injection and plasticization screen 225 is a screen for setting injection conditions, holding pressure conditions and plasticization conditions of raw material resin”).
Morikawa does not explicitly teach receiving a selection of whether to perform a retreat speed control to control an actual speed value of the injection member to a first set value or a retreat speed limitation to limit the actual speed value of the injection member to a second set value or less during a retreat of the injection member.
However, Aiba teaches a retreat speed control to control an actual speed value of the injection member to a first set value (Par. [0037] “controller 7 performs a control of the injection molding machine based on predetermined molding conditions. The molding conditions includes, for example, … the retreat speed of the injection plunger 43”) and a retreat speed limitation to limit the actual speed value of the injection member to a second set value or less during a retreat of the injection member (Par. [0054] “the retreat speed of the injection plunger 43 is increased by a predetermined amount or in a predetermined proportion within a range not exceeding the retreat speed in the vent-up suppression conditions.”).
Morikawa and Aiba are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to injection molding machines.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above machine settings receiving display, as taught by Morikawa, and incorporate an option for retreat speed control, as taught by Aiba.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve reduction of molding defects as suggested by Aiba (Par. [0006]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Morikawa and Aiba teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Morikawa further teaches wherein the injection process includes a holding pressure process that controls a pressure acting on the molding material from the injection member (Par. [0095] “The injection and plasticization screen 225 is a screen for setting injection conditions, holding pressure conditions and plasticization conditions of raw material resin”), and
a first input field to which the first set value is to be input and an input field to which a set value of the holding pressure process is to be input are arranged side by side on the screen (Fig. 26, 32, Par. [0062] “FIG. 32 A view showing a description of holding pressure setting which appears on the injection and plasticization screen.” - under the holding pressure settings section of a screen in figures 26 and 32, dwell pressure, timer, and velocity input fields are arranged side by side. The first input field could be placed side by side as well if included. The placement of the input field is merely design by choice.).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Morikawa and Aiba teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Morikawa further teaches a control device of an injection molding machine that controls the injection process according to a setting made using the display unit (Fig. 1, Par. [0068] “a touch panel which serves both as a display portion 30 which is an output interface for an operator, and as an input portion 40 which is an input interface for receiving an input from the operator”; Fig. 1-2, Par. [0070] “control portion 24 which performs control, etc. of the machine as a whole”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Morikawa and Aiba teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Morikawa further teaches an injection molding machine (Fig. 1, Par. [0068] “injection molding machine 1”) comprising:
the display unit according to claim 1 (Fig. 1-2, Par. [0068] “The injection molding machine 1 according to this example has: a molding mechanism portion 10 which molds an article by mechanical operation; a microcomputer portion 20 which performs operation control of the molding mechanism portion 10, etc.; a touch panel which serves both as a display portion 30 which is an output interface for an operator, and as an input portion 40 which is an input interface for receiving an input from the Operator”);
the injection member (Par. [0088] “The temperature setting screen 211 is a screen for setting heating conditions of band heaters wound around an injection cylinder”) and
the injection drive source (Par. [0070] “The microcomputer portion 20 has: a respective drive portion input/output portion 21 which inputs/outputs a signal to each motor or each encoder; a respective drive portion control portion 22 which performs control, etc. of the signal inputted/outputted from the respective drive portion input/output portion 21 (i.e. control of each drive portion)”).
Claim(s) 2-3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa et al. USPGPUB 2013/0103184 A1 (hereinafter Morikawa) in view of Aiba et al. USPGPUB 2021/0268708 A1 (hereinafter Aiba), and further in view of Turner (12 Chrome extensions that will help you save time, June 2022) (hereinafter Turner).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Morikawa and Aiba teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Morikawa and Aiba teaches a screen, but does not explicitly teach a screen including a dual-purpose input field that serves as both a first input field to which the first set value is to be input and a second input field to which the second set value is to be input.
However, Turner teaches wherein the screen includes a dual-purpose input field that serves as both a first input field to which the first set value is to be input and a second input field to which the second set value is to be input (Page 14, Video Speed Controller, second and third columns serve as multi-purpose input fields that depend on the selection in the first column.).
Morikawa and Turner are analogous art because contain functional similarities. They both relate to data input fields on a display.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above display unit, as taught by Morikawa, and incorporate a dual-purpose input field, as taught by Turner.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve screen space efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Morikawa and Aiba teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Turner further teaches wherein the selection part and the dual-purpose input
field are arranged side by side (Page 14, Video Speed Controller, the selection part, input field in column 1, is side by side with the multi-purpose input fields located in columns 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Morikawa and Aiba teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Morikawa further teaches wherein the injection process includes a filling process for controlling a speed of the injection member and the holding pressure process in this order (Par. [0023] “In the final stage of the plasticization process, switching is performed to switch screw drive control to pressure control from velocity control so that a predetermined retained pressure is given to the molten resin packed in a mold cavity to prevent the shape of a molded article from becoming poor.”), and
in a case where the holding pressure process is divided into n (n is an integer equal to or larger than 2) processes and a k-th (k is an integer equal to or larger than 1 and equal to or smaller than n) process from the filling process is referred to as a k-th stage process, the screen includes an input field to which a set value of a time when a first stage process of the holding pressure process is to be performed is to be input (Fig. 26, 32, Par. [0095] “the injection and plasticization screen 225 is a screen for setting injection conditions, holding pressure conditions and plasticization conditions of raw material resin … heading fields of … holding pressure setting, heading fields of holding pressure, holding pressure timer, holding pressure velocity and V-P switching”) and an input field to which a set value of a time when the retreat speed control is to be performed is to be input (Par. [0096] “operator inputs required setting values in the respective display fields of V-P switching timer and V-P switching stroke”).
Morikawa and Aiba does not explicitly teach the screen includes an input field that serves as both an input field to which a set value of a time when a first stage process of the holding pressure process is to be performed is to be input and an input field to which a set value of a time when the retreat speed control is to be performed is to be input.
However, Turner teaches an input field serving as a multi-purpose input field (Page 14, Video Speed Controller, second and third columns serve as multi-purpose input fields that depend on the selection in the first column).
Morikawa and Turner are analogous art because contain functional similarities. They both relate to data input fields on a display.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above input fields, as taught by Morikawa, and incorporate a dual-purpose input field, as taught by Turner.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve screen space efficiency.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa et al. USPGPUB 2013/0103184 A1 (hereinafter Morikawa) in view of Aiba et al. USPGPUB 2021/0268708 A1 (hereinafter Aiba), and further in view of Watanabe et al. USPGPUB 2004/0091567 A1 (hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Morikawa and Aiba teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Morikawa and Aiba do not explicitly teach wherein the screen includes a retreat distance input field to which a set value of a retreat distance of the injection member is to be input as a condition in which the retreat speed control is released.
However, Watanabe teaches wherein the screen includes a retreat distance input
field to which a set value of a retreat distance of the injection member is to be input as a condition in which the retreat speed control is released (Claim 15, “back pressure feedback control means commands a retreat distance of the screw or plunger so that a detected resin pressure coincides with a set resin pressure”).
Morikawa and Watanabe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to injection molding.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above display unit, as taught by Morikawa, and incorporate a retreat distance input field, as taught by Watanabe.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve pressure control as suggested by Watanabe (Par. [0012]).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Horiuchi et al. [USPGPUB 2021/0094213 A1] teaches a control device for an injection molding machine that includes a display unit.
Amano [USPGPUB 2003/0215536 A1] teaches a control system for an injection molding machine performing a molding cycle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER XU whose telephone number is (571)272-0792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/PETER XU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119