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 Claims
Claims 1-4 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a storage unit (recites in claim 1, discloses as a storage area in a memory of a computer device, See Specification at fig.1 and [0016]),
a display control unit (recites in claims 1-4, discloses as a function of processing performed according to the control program by the CPU, and are not necessarily clearly distinguishable in a physical structure and a program structure), and
a setting unit (recites only in claim 4; discloses as a function of processing performed according to the control program by the CPU, and are not necessarily clearly distinguishable in a physical structure and a program structure, See Specification at fig.1 and [0016]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 recite the elements “a display control unit” and “a setting unit” that have been interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See claim interpretation above). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. Written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material or acts perform the claimed function.
As disclosed in the specification, “the display control unit 14, and the setting unit 15 are categorized according to the function of processing performed according to the control program by the CPU, and are not necessarily clearly distinguishable in a physical structure and a program structure” (See Specification at [0016]). It is unclear and indefinite when these elements that invoked 112f to not have a clear distinguishable physical structure. Presumedly, if these elements to be interpreted as a program structure, the specification fails to disclose a detailed algorithm (step-by-step) plan for each of the claimed units (the display control unit and the setting unit) and functions that invoked 112f. Thus, the claimed limitations are not supported by the specification and are not in accordance with MPEP 2181(II)(B).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(0) and 2181.
Claims 2-4 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Okochi et al. (US 2016/0082504-A1).
With respect to claim 1, Okochi teaches an injection molding control device for controlling an injection molding operation of an injection molding machine (control device 20 of the injection molding machine 1, fig.1), comprising:
a touch panel (touch panel 27, fig.1);
a storage unit (storage unit 20b, fig.1 and [0068]) that stores data collected with regard to the injection molding machine (customize the menu button for each injection molding machine so as to be stored in the storage unit, [0068]); and
a display control unit (processing unit 20a, fig.1) that displays, on the touch panel, a graph of part of the data extracted from the storage unit (the processing unit 20a reads various information stored in the storage unit 20b according to instruction and selection from a user and displays the information on the display unit 29, [0055]; touch panel 27 includes a touch information detection unit 28…specifies a position of a touched area when the surface of the display unit 29 is pressed (touched), and which can perform operations corresponding to the touched area and has both a function of a display device and a function for allowing input [0061], different graphs are displayed in area 30 of fig.2, [0062]) and changes a displayed content of the graph according to a touch operation on the touch panel (the menu buttons may be a two-step menu button in which when an arbitrary button (Temp) from the first selection button list L1 is touched [0063]; synchronously scroll the first display image P1 and the second display image P2, fig.2 and [0073]; the exchange operation of the screen may be performed by a predetermined touch action [0125]),
wherein the display control unit changes the displayed content of the graph differently based on whether the touch operation is a predetermined gesture operation with a single touch (switching between the right and left positions and switching between the scroll directions may be performed by a touching operation of one touch type [0130]) or a gesture operation with a multi-touch1.
With respect to claim 2, Okochi teaches wherein the display control unit determines, as the gesture operation, at least one of swipe (a swipe operation in which the surface of the second display area 32 is traced in the horizontal direction X may be applied [0131]), drag (scroll may be performed by pressing soft switches or hard switches such as sheet keys on the touch panel, and may be performed by a touch action operation of moving the image in the scroll direction while touching the touch panel, that is, a so-called swipe operation [0085]; switching between the right and left positions and switching between the scroll directions may be performed by a touching operation of one touch type or a switch operation [0130], scroll directions based on one touch is interpreted as a drag gesture operation), or flick.
With respect to claim 3, Okochi teaches wherein a change in the displayed content by the display control unit includes at least one of movement of a range of an axis of the graph, a change in a scale of an axis of the graph, movement of a cursor for selecting a data element on the graph or a position on an axis of the graph, or a change in a data item to be displayed (synchronously scroll the first display image P1 and the second display image P2, fig.2 and [0073]; switching between the right and left positions and switching between the scroll directions may be performed by a touching operation of one touch type [0130]).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okochi et al. (US 2016/0082504-A1) in view of Nishiyama et al. (JP-2002361702-A).
With respect to claim 4, Okochi teaches further comprising: a setting unit that sets an appropriate data in the injection molding operation (Okochi: the menu buttons are customized to the setting screens including parameters greatly influencing each mold or each molded part [0065]; setting screens are displayed on the entire screen, and the user can input conditions while checking all setting values on the screen…input and change the setting values while reviewing the setting values closely related to each other in a series of mechanical operations even if the mechanical operations are different from each other [0080]).
Nishiyama does not appear to teach: wherein the display control unit displays, on the graph, a management marker indicating the appropriate range, the change in the displayed content by the display control unit includes movement or deformation of the management marker, and the setting unit changes a set value for the appropriate range according to the movement or deformation of the management marker
However, it is known by Nishiyama to teach of an injection molding machine including a graph display device (Nishiyama: fig.3), particularly, a setting unit that sets an appropriate range of the data in the injection molding operation (Nishiyama: in the multi-stage setting, a marker whose operation range is defined by the number of stages and stroke range information can be set while preventing malfunction, p.10; a number of markers set based on the number of injection stages set by the number of injection stages setting unit are displayed in time series, p.13), wherein the display control unit displays, on the graph (Nishiyama: display control unit displays a graph 303, fig.3), a management marker indicating the appropriate range, the change in the displayed content by the display control unit includes movement or deformation of the management marker, and the setting unit changes a set value for the appropriate range according to the movement or deformation of the management marker (Nishiyama: set number of markers can be displayed in chronological order…by moving the displayed marker in time series, the injection speed switching position corresponding to the marker can be changed, and the marker movement range is limited so that the marker is moved only within the settable range, p.3; in the multi-stage setting, a marker whose operation range is defined by the number of stages and stroke range information can be set while preventing malfunction, p.10; a number of markers set based on the number of injection stages set by the number of injection stages setting unit are displayed in time series, p.13).
Because Nishiyama is also directed to an injection molding machine (Nishiyama: fig.3; Okochi: figs.1-2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of “a management marker indicating the appropriate range, the change in the displayed content by the display control unit includes movement or deformation of the management marker, and the setting unit changes a set value for the appropriate range according to the movement or deformation of the management marker” as taught by Nishiyama with the injection molding machine as taught by Okochi for the purpose of easily perform the setting of the injection molding conditions and the setting of the analysis conditions (Nishiyama: p.2)
Conclusion
The additional prior arts made of record and have not been relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as follows: US-20060247821-A1 and US-20150177980-A1. Note: US2015/0331399 filed in the IDS 09/29/23 teaches a multi-touch panel for simultaneously detecting the position of several touch points. WO2017146008 also filed in the IDS 09/29/23 appears to teach a two-point up swipe operation or two-point down swipe operation is input to a touch panel of a display of an injection molding machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN (CINDY) D KHUU whose telephone number is (571)272-8585. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HIEN D KHUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116 December 2, 2025
1 Optional limitation.