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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/24/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that Amano does not teach the newly added limitations but these are taught by the newly added references.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 6, 8, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 7128854. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
7128854 recites the contents of claim 1 are recited in claims 5, 6, 10
7128854 recites the contents of claim 2 are recited in claims 5, 6, 10
7128854 recites the contents of claim 3 are recited in claims 5, 6, 10
7128854 recites the contents of claim 5 are recited in claims 8, 10
7128854 recites the contents of claim 6 are recited in claims 8, 10
7128854 recites the contents of claim 7 are recited in claims 8, 10
Claims 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 6, 8, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 7128854 in view of Nishizawa (US 2006/0247821). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
7128854 does not explicitly recite the content claim 4
Nishizawa teaches a HMI control device for an injection molding machine[Abstract] wherein control settings can be switched on and off and reordered [0006, 0007, 0008, 0011, claim 1] as well as allows parameters to be input and displayed [0010, 0011, 0036, 0039, 0042, claim 1, Fig 5-9] as this allows for parameters and processes to be quickly changed without burden to the operator [0008]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Amano and a display control unit that displays a screen used to set the first set condition on a display unit wherein the screen includes a selection part that receives a selection of whether to perform the release of the retreat speed limitation and an input part that receives an input of the preset upper limit, as suggested by Nishizawa, in order to allows for parameters and processes to be quickly changed without burden to the operator.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 14, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 7485247. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
7485247 recites the contents of claim 1 are recited in claims 1-3, 14
7485247 recites the contents of claim 2 are recited in claims 1-3, 14, 17
7485247 recites the contents of claim 3 are recited in claims 1-3, 14, 17
7485247 recites the contents of claim 5 are recited in claims 1-3, 14
7485247 recites the contents of claim 6 are recited in claims 1-3, 14, 17
7485247 recites the contents of claim 7 are recited in claims 1-3, 14
Claim 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 14, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 7485247 in view of Nishizawa (US 2006/0247821). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
7485247 does not explicitly recite the content claim 4
Nishizawa teaches a HMI control device for an injection molding machine[Abstract] wherein control settings can be switched on and off and reordered [0006, 0007, 0008, 0011, claim 1] as well as allows parameters to be input and displayed [0010, 0011, 0036, 0039, 0042, claim 1, Fig 5-9] as this allows for parameters and processes to be quickly changed without burden to the operator [0008]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Amano and a display control unit that displays a screen used to set the first set condition on a display unit wherein the screen includes a selection part that receives a selection of whether to perform the release of the retreat speed limitation and an input part that receives an input of the preset upper limit, as suggested by Nishizawa, in order to allows for parameters and processes to be quickly changed without burden to the operator.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Amano (US 2007/0007683) in view of Oka (US 2004/0159965).
As to claim 1, Amano teaches a control device of an injection molding machine including an injection member that is provided in a cylinder (21) heating a molding material and an injection drive source (11) that causes the injection member to advance to fill an inside of a mold unit with the molding material, the control device comprising: an injection control unit (26) that performs a retreat speed limitation to limit an actual speed value of the injection member to a first set value or less during retreat of the injection member [Abstract] in a holding pressure process for controlling a pressure acting on the molding material from the injection member [0010, 0011, 0012, Fig 4], wherein the injection control unit releases the retreat speed limitation in a case where a first set condition is satisfied while the retreat speed limitation is performed (ie when the 2nd amount is greater than the first amount) [0032, 0074, 0075]. The retreating speed of the screw is increased Amano notes that the “first amount” is the difference between an actual value of the speed and a 2nd value and the switchover to the pressure control (the second amount) allows actual speed to be in excess of the set value as long as the difference is less than the pressure difference from a preset value [0074, 0075, 0036-0039]. Amano teaches the first set condition includes a condition in which the pressure satisfies a preset condition ie when the detected/actual pressure exceeds hold pressure preset value [0079]. Amano teaches the first set condition includes a condition in which an actual value of the pressure exceeds a preset upper limit [0079].
Examiner notes that Amano refers to the difference between actual pressure and preset pressure as a “second amount” and the difference between actual speed and the preset speed as a “first amount.”
Oka teaches a method of backpressure control in an injection molding machine [Abstract] and when pressure exceeds a set value the retreat speed is increased beyond an initial limit phrased as being changed second retreating speed command value in order to reduce pressure quickly [0030, 0031, 0037, Fig 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Amano and utilized releasing the retreat speed limitation and controlling the retreat speed to be a higher speed than the limitation, as suggested by Oka, in order to quickly reduce pressure.
As to claim 3,” the preset upper limit is set on the basis of a withstanding pressure of a part of the injection molding machine or of the mold unit” describes the mental state of the operator when inputting a parameter not structural limitation of the device. Hence, this feature is merely a manner of operating the device (ie how the operator decides a value to input). The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II. Furthermore, the preset upper limit pressure limit described by Amano and Oka must be based at least in part on the withstanding pressure of a part otherwise the machine would be nonfunctional.
As to claim 5, Amano teaches the injection control unit releases the retreat speed limitation and controls the actual speed value of the injection member to a second set value larger than the first set value during the retreat of the injection member [0044] as when the 2nd amount is greater than the first amount the limit is released and speed control is performed which implicitly would be higher speed than the limit.
As to claim 6, Amano teaches the injection control unit performs the retreat speed limitation again in a case where a second set condition is satisfied after the release of the retreat speed limitation (ie when the first amount is greater than the 2nd amount) [0032, 0074, 0075].
As to claim 7, Amano teaches the injection member (23); and the injection drive source (11) [Fig 2].
Claim(s) 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano (US 2007/0007683) in view of Oka (US 2004/0159965), as applied to claims 1,3, 5-7 above, and in further view of Nishizawa (US 2006/0247821).
As to claim 4, Amano notes a input device for the controller and measured parameters [0058-0059] but does not explicitly state a display control unit that displays a screen used to set the first set condition on a display unit wherein the screen includes a selection part that receives a selection of whether to perform the release of the retreat speed limitation and an input part that receives an input of the preset upper limit.
Nishizawa teaches a HMI control device for an injection molding machine[Abstract] wherein control settings can be switched on and off and reordered [0006, 0007, 0008, 0011, claim 1] as well as allows parameters to be input and displayed [0010, 0011, 0036, 0039, 0042, claim 1, Fig 5-9] as this allows for parameters and processes to be quickly changed without burden to the operator [0008]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Amano and a display control unit that displays a screen used to set the first set condition on a display unit wherein the screen includes a selection part that receives a selection of whether to perform the release of the retreat speed limitation and an input part that receives an input of the preset upper limit, as suggested by Nishizawa, in order to allows for parameters and processes to be quickly changed without burden to the operator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights