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 .
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 11/30/2023
Claims 1-11 are pending
Examiner decided to maintain 103 rejections
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 7-9 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 Hakoda et al. USPGPUB 2009/0218710 A1 (hereinafter Hakoda).
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 one of a retreat speed control to control an actual speed value of the injection member to a first set value 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, and
The injection drive source is controlled according to the selection made using the selection part to selectively perform the selected one of the retreat speed control and the retreat speed limitation.
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”; Par. [0032], “the injection plunger 43 retreats at a retreat speed (A/bt+ V) [mm/s] which is obtained by adding a predetermined set value V [mis] to the reference speed (A / bt) [mm/s]”) 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]).
Morikawa and Aiba do not explicitly teach the injection drive source is controlled according to the selection made using the selection part to selectively perform the selected one of the retreat speed control and the retreat speed limitation.
However, Hakoda teaches the injection drive source is controlled according to the selection made using the selection part to selectively perform the selected one of the retreat speed control and the retreat speed limitation (Par. [0008], “the injection molding machine 1 including mode selection means 8 that can selectively switch between a first control mode M1 and a second control mode M2”; Par. [0016], “when the manual selection means 8m that can manually and arbitrarily perform switching is used as the mode selection means 8, it is possible to select an optimum control mode by the decision of an operator.”).
Morikawa, Aiba, and Hakoda are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all 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 injection molding machine with retreat speed control and retreat speed limitation settings on a display/input screen, as taught by Morikawa and Aiba, and incorporate a mode selection technique so that an operator can select the desired mode for operating the injection mode machine, as taught by Hakoda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve operator flexibility and lower costs, as suggested by Hakoda (Par. [0041]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Morikawa, Aiba, and Hakoda 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, Aiba, and Hakoda 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, Aiba, and Hakoda 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)”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Morikawa, Aiba, and Hakoda teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Aiba further teaches wherein:
in the retreat speed control, the injection drive source is controlled to cause the actual speed value of the injection member to reach the first set value regardless of a speed command value during the retreat of the injection member (Par. [0032] “When a setting for performing the retreat-metering comes into ON, the retreat-metering is performed at least at a part of timing during the metering … Metering from 0 [mm] to (A-C) [mm] is performed while the injection plunger 43 retreats at a retreat speed (A/bt+ V) [mm/s] which is obtained by adding a predetermined set value V [mis] to the reference speed (A / bt) [mm/s].” – when retreat speed control is selected, the injection drive source is controlled to make the actual retreat speed reach the selected set speed, rather than merely applying an upper limit to another generated speed command.), and
in the retreat speed limitation, the injection drive source is controlled based on a minimum value of the speed command value and the second set value during the 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.” – In the combined system, using the lower/minimum of an otherwise-commanded retreat speed and the second set value would have been an obvious way to implement Aiba’s non-exceeding speed limitation.).
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 Hakoda et al. USPGPUB 2009/0218710 A1 (hereinafter Hakoda), 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, Aiba, and Hakoda teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Morikawa, Aiba, and Hakoda teaches a screen, but do 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, Aiba, and Hakoda 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, Aiba, and Hakoda 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, Aiba, and Hakoda do 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, and 10-11 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 Hakoda et al. USPGPUB 2009/0218710 A1 (hereinafter Hakoda), and further in view of Watanabe et al. USPGPUB 2004/0091567 A1 (hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Morikawa, Aiba, and Hakoda teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Morikawa, Aiba, and Hakoda 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, Aiba, Hakoda, and Watanabe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all 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]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Morikawa, Aiba, and Hakoda teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Morikawa, Aiba, and Hakoda do not explicitly teach wherein the injection member is stopped before the selected one of the retreat speed control and the retreat speed limitation is performed.
However, Watanabe teaches wherein the injection member is stopped before the selected one of the retreat speed control and the retreat speed limitation is performed (Par. [0004], “retreat speed of the screw is decreased so that the screw stops at a set metering completion position”; Par. [0008], “causing the screw to retreat without rotating the screw (that is, performing sack back) after metering is completed”; Par. [0017], “means for stopping the back pressure feedback control by the back pressure feedback control means when the screw or plunger reaches a set change point before the screw or plunger reaches a metering completion position and moving the screw or plunger up to the metering completion position” – screw is stopped at the metering completion position before a subsequent retreat operation).
Morikawa, Aiba, Hakoda, and Watanabe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all 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 stopping or positioning the injection member before performing the selected retreat speed operation, as taught by Watanabe.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve stabilization of the metering state and resin pressure before performing a subsequent retreat operation as suggested by Watanabe (Par. [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Morikawa, Aiba, Hakoda, and Watanabe teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Morikawa further teaches wherein the screen includes an input field arranging two inputs side by side on a screen (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 injection position, injection velocity, injection primary pressure and holding pressure setting, heading fields of holding pressure, holding pressure timer, holding pressure velocity and V-P switching”; Par. [0096], “operator inputs required setting values in the respective display fields” – related injection process input fields are placed together on the same screen).
Morikawa and Hakoda do not explicitly teach receiving the first set value, and the retreat distance input field.
However, Aiba teaches receiving the first set value (Par. [0037], “the retreat speed of the injection plunger 43 during the retreat-metering”; Par. [0032], “the injection plunger 43 retreats at a retreat speed (A/bt+ V) [mm/s] which is obtained by adding a predetermined set value V [mis] to the reference speed (A / bt) [mm/s]” – first set value corresponds to retreat speed which is taught by Aiba.).
Morikawa, Hakoda, and Aiba do not explicitly teach a retreat distance input field.
However, Watanabe teaches a retreat distance input field (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”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the input field for the first set value and the retreat distance input field side by side on Morikawa’s injection and plasticization screen. Placing the retreat speed value and retreat distance value side by side would improve usability by grouping related retreat control parameters together, allowing the operator to set both inputs in the same area of the screen.
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
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.
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
Prosecution Insights