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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 11, 16-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kortec et al. (WO 2005/018909).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 11, 17, Kortec et al. disclose a method for controlling an injection molding machine (multilayer injection molding apparatus having a control system, page 7, lines 5-7) comprising a reciprocating plasticizing screw and a controller system (injection screw, page 4, lines 30-31) adapted for measuring or calculating at least one first production parameter based upon input signals from at least one sensor arranged on the injection molding machine (inspection device 170 may be any suitable device for measuring a selected product feature suitable measurement techniques include, but are not limited to optical techniques, magnetic
resonance techniques page 8, lines 24-29) and for controlling/setting at least one second production
parameter on the injection molding machine (controller adjusts one or more parameters e.g., the target
temperatures, page 8, lines 15-19), and where the method comprises:
a. setting a preselected target value for the first production parameter, and inputting the target value into the controller system (e.g. position of leading edge, page 8, lines 24-29);
b. comparing by the controller system the measured first production parameter of one production cycle
with the preselected target value for the first production parameter (characteristics in a selected range,
page 13, lines 13-17);
c. calculating by the controller system using a mathematical function between the first production
parameter and the second production parameter (position of e.g. leading edge VS nozzle temperature) a
new value for the second production parameter as a function of the difference between the first
production parameter and the preselected target value for the selected actual production parameter (In
response to the measured characteristic, the controller executes an algorithm and adjusts one or more
parameters [comment: relationship between nozzle temperatures and movement of the leading edges],
page 13, lines 13 -21);
d. setting by the controller system the new value for the second production parameter on the injection
molding machine for a subsequent production cycle (the temperature changes necessary to effect the
desired movement are determined by applying this technique iteratively, page 14, lines 22-33
[comment: iteratively refers to subsequent molding cycles, see page 13, line 19]).
Regarding claim 2, Kortec et al. disclose setting by the controller system the new value for the second production parameter for the subsequent production cycle in order to ensure that the difference between the first production parameter for the subsequent production cycle and the preselected target value for the first production parameter is reduced (adjusting one or more parameters of the injection
molding apparatus to attain products having characteristics in a selected range [comment: range =
target], page 13, lines 1-3; during one or more subsequent molding cycles (i.e. iterations), characteristics
of other cavities may be measured and adjusted to attain products having characteristics in the selected
range [comment: for each cycle more cavities are within range and thereby the difference in
characteristics to target range is reduced], page 13, lines 13-32).
Regarding claim 3, Kortec et al. disclose the setting by the controller system of said new value for the second production parameter for a subsequent production cycle is performed for the production cycle immediately following the first production cycle ( measure at least one characteristic of a first multi-layer molded product second product is different, see claims 1 and 25).
Regarding claims 4, 16, Kortec et al. disclose the mathematical function is a predefined linear function (page 14, lines 1-12 and 24-32).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortec et al. (WO 2005/018909).
Regarding claim 5, Kortec et al. disclose that the calculating of a new value for the second production parameter comprises restricting that the difference between the previous value for the second production parameter and new value for the second production parameter does not exceed a common average (sum of changes of temperatures is equal to zero, page 15, lines 1-14). It does not specifically disclose that the difference is limited by a predefined value. However, it may be considered
as how to limit a change for a production parameter for controlling an injection molding machine.
However, it is common knowledge to limit a change of a control parameter by a predefined value. We
consider that the person skilled in the art of injection molding, who would like to solve the above-
mentioned problem, would be inspired by this common knowledge to suggest the solution mentioned in
claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortec et al. (WO 2005/018909) in view of Mensler et al.(US 20180117817).
Regarding claims 6, 12, Kortec et al. disclose all but does not specifically disclose that the first production parameter is the injection time, and the second production parameter is the injection flow rate. It may be considered as a selection of control parameters for an injection molding machine.
However, using injection time for controlling injection flow rate in a subsequent cycle is already known. In an analogous art, Mensler et al. disclose at paragraph 0018-0022 in the art of injection molding and specific injection times. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the system of Kortec et al. with that of Mensler et al. for controlling the injection flow rate because it would have achieved a desired result for controlling the parameter function for the following injection molding process.
Claim(s) 7, 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortec et al. (WO 2005/018909) in view of Fanuc (EP 0525198).
Regarding claims 7, 13, Kortec et al. disclose all but fail to specifically disclose that the first production parameter is the position of the reciprocating plasticizing screw after injection (cushion), and the second production parameter is the plasticization volume. (It may be considered as a how to control an injected plasticization volume for an injection molding machine).
However, using the position of the reciprocating plasticizing screw to control the injected plasticization
volume is already known;
In an analogous art, Fanuc discloses at page 4, lines 4-22 how to control an injected plasticization volume for an injection molding machine. It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the system of Kotec et al. with that of Fanuc by controlling an injected plasticization volume for an injection molding machine because it would have achieved a desired result for monitoring the position in the process of production parameter.
Claim(s) 8, 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortec et al. (WO 2005/018909) in view of Krauss (KR 2021/0078509)
Regarding claim 8, 14, Kortec et al. disclose all but fail to specifically disclose the first production parameter is the pressure integral and the second production parameter is the holding pressure. (It is considered as how to control a pressure in a pressure in a pressure holding step of an injection molding machine.
In an analogous art, Krauss discloses using a difference in a pressure integral to a target pressure integral to control a holding pressure in a subsequent cycle is already known; see, paragraphs [0053], [0057] and [0062]-[0068]. Therefore, it is considered that the person skilled in the art of injection
molding, with a reasonable expectation of success to use a difference in a pressure integral to a target pressure integral to control a holding pressure in a subsequent cycle.
Claim(s) 9, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortec et al. (WO 2005/018909) in view of (JP 6804674).
Regarding claims 9, 15, Kortec et al. disclose all but fail to specifically disclose that the first production parameter is the actual dosage time for the reciprocating plasticizing screw to plasticize a preselected volume of plastic material, and where the second production parameter is the speed of rotation of the reciprocating plasticizing screw during the plasticizing process. (It is considered as how to control the feeding from a plasticizing screw of an injection molding machine).
In an analogous art JP 6804674 discloses controlling the feeding from a plasticizing screw using a dosage time and adjusting the speed of rotation of the reciprocating plasticizing screw in a subsequent cycle is already known; see JP 6804674B1, paragraphs [0050]-[0053]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the system of Kortec et al. with that of JP6804674 because it would have achieved a desired result in the art of injection molding.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burns et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20200001511) disclose systems and approaches for controlling an injection molding machine and a mold forming a mold cavity and being controlled according to an injection cycle. The systems and methods include analyzing a model of at least one of the injection molding machine, the mold, and a molten material to determine initial values for one or more control parameters of the injection molding machine, and executing a run of injection cycles at the injection molding machine; measuring operation of the injection molding machine during a particular injection cycle of the run of injection cycles; determining one or more operational parameters exceed a threshold; and upon determining that the one or more operational parameters exceed the threshold, adjusting the one or more control parameters for subsequent injection cycles of the run of injection cycles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 EST.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights