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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendments filed 2/2/2026 the previous rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn however the amendments also prompted new rejections under 112.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fitzpatrick does not describe determining a volume and baseline pressure drop of the polymer flow pathway and calculating a change in pressure as now recited in claim 10. Applicant does not cite any specific reasoning as to why Fitzpatrick would not meet these claims. Examiner disagrees. Determining the volume and the baseline pressure drop of the polymer flow pathway are not described in the specification and are considered new matter. Additionally, the comparisons made between the “baseline pressure drop” and the first or second pressure drops are not clear because it is not clear what the baseline pressure drop is other than the first or second pressure drops. Fitzpatrick meets these claim limitations as best can be interpreted. Applicant also presents arguments with respect to Sugano but these arguments are considered moot because Sugano is no longer being relied upon for the rejection of claim 10.
With respect to the Biesenberger reference, Applicant argues that the Biesenberger and Fitzpatrick operate in distinct technological fields (injection vs extrusion) and cannot be combined because Fitzpatrick has a complex control process while Biesenberger has a simple control process. Examiner disagrees. With respect to the technological fields, the claims now recite an injection process in claim 10 and extrusion process steps in claims 17-21. It is unclear if the claims are directed to injection, extrusion, or both. Either way, a person of skill in the art operating an injection control method might look to an extrusion control reference because both are control processes for melting plastic and forming products. As far as complexity, the modifications are made to the primary reference, i.e., Fitzpatrick is modified by Biesenberger. The simplicity of Biesenberger is not undermined by Fitzpatrick because Fitzpatrick is being modified by Biesenberger, not the other way around as described in the arguments.
Applicant also notes that Biesenberger does not describe the amendments to claim 10 however Fitzpatrick is cited as teaching these amendments. The rejections to claims 1-3, 5, and 11-21 are also maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation, “determining a volume and baseline pressure drop of the polymer flow pathway.” There is not support for this limitation in the originally filed disclosure. First, the specification does not describe determining a volume of the polymer flow pathway. The specification mentions multiple times that the volume between the sensors is known, see [0034]-[0037]. Additionally, [0022] mentions “calculating the interior volume” but it is not specified what the interior volume is. Therefore, there is not enough support for calculating the volume of the polymer flow pathway as recited in claim 10. Second, the specification does not mention a “baseline pressure drop,” While the baseline pressure is mentioned in [0048]-[0049], there is no drop of the baseline mentioned here and it is not clear what the baseline drop would be since the baseline is typically one measurement that does not drop. Dependent claims 1-3, 5, and 11-21 are also rejected for the same reason as above.
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 1-3, 5, and 10-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 1 recite the limitation “baseline pressure drop” but it is not clear what this term means or how it should be interpreted in the claims. As per [0048], it seems that the baseline measurement is the respective pressure values of the first and second sensors. As per [0049] it seems that a comparison is made between the baseline measurements and later-obtained measurements, but there is no baseline drop that is disclosed or referred to in the specification. Based on this, it is not clear how determining the baseline pressure drop in claim 10 is different from the other claimed steps of determining a first or second pressure drop since these drops also are the difference between the two sensors at the different times. This is being interpreted as being the difference between the first sensor and the second sensor at any time. Claims 2-3, 5, and 11-121 are rejected as being dependent from a claim rejected under 112(b).
Claim 11 recites the term “the sensed change in pressure.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 10 no longer recites a sensing step, or a sensed change. This will be interpreted to mean any of the pressure drops or changes described in claim 10.
Claims 12-14 each recite “the step of sensing a change in pressure.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 10 no longer recites a sensing step. This will be interpreted to man any of the pressure drops or changes in claim 10.
Claims 17-21 recite the polymer being extruded through an extrusion die but claim 1 describes an injection cycle. Claim 21 also refers to an injection cycle. It is not clear if the method is directed to forming a part via an injection cycle, an extrusion cycle, or both. This will be interpreted to refer to additional extrusion steps.
Claim 20 recites that the sensors are positioned at a location defining a known volume. This is unclear because claim 10 recites that the sensors are in the polymer flow pathway and that the volume of the polymer pathway is determined. It is not clear if the sensors are located in a known volume or if the volume is calculated later. This will be interpreted to mean either.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fitzpatrick (US 2009/0267253, previously made of record on the IDS dated 12/15/2023.).
Regarding claim 10, Fitzpatrick meets the claimed, A method for forming a part according to an injection cycle, the method comprising: introducing a molten polymer into a cavity; (Fitzpatrick [0057] describe providing plastic to a mold cavity 83) obtaining, using a first sensor, a first measurement of a first variable and a subsequent second measurement of the first variable during the injection cycle; (Fitzpatrick [0069] describe a pressure transducer PT1 measures pressure on the screw, [0074] describes the PT1 measurement is taken every Y time interval) the first sensor being positioned in a polymer flow pathway upstream of the cavity (Fitzpatrick [0069] and Figure 3 show the pressure transducer PT1 on the screw upstream of the cavity 83) obtaining, using a second sensor positioned downstream of the first sensor, a first measurement of a second variable and a subsequent second measurement of the second variable during the injection cycle; (Fitzpatrick [0069] describes a second pressure transduce PT2 measuring pressure in the injection tube, [0074] describes the PT2 measurement is taken every Y time interval) the second sensor being positioned in the polymer flow pathway downstream of the first sensor but upstream of the cavity (Fitzpatrick [0069] and Figure 3 show the second pressure transducer PT2 is downstream of the first transducer PT1 and still upstream of the cavity) determining a first pressure drop between the first measurement of the first variable and the first measurement of the second variable; (Fitzpatrick [0074]-[0075] describes obtaining Delta12 which is the difference of PT1 and PT2 at any given Y interval, i.e., the different between the first and second variable at both the first and second measurement) determining a second pressure drop between the second measurement of the first variable and the second measurement of the second variable; (Fitzpatrick [0074]-[0075] describe the process of determining Delta12 is repeated at different time intervals, the first time the calculation is performed is the first measurement, the second time is the second measurement, etc.) determining a volume (Fitzpatrick [0019] describes the volume and size of one portion of the injection tube compared to the other portions, if the volume and size of the sections is known, it was calculated at some point) and baseline pressure drop of the polymer flow pathway; (Fitzpatrick [0075] describes a maximum corresponding predetermined setpoint is determined for Delta12, this setpoint is the baseline pressure drop) calculating a change in pressure of the molten polymer between the at least one of the first pressure drop and the second pressure drop, the first pressure drop and the baseline pressure drop, or the second pressure drop and the baseline pressure drop; (Fitzpatrick [0075] compared Delta12 at any given time interval to the baseline setpoint) and adjusting at least one control parameter based on the change in pressure of the molten polymer (Fitzpatrick [0075] describes turning on heaters in response to Delta12.)
Regarding claim 11, Fitzpatrick meets the claimed, The method of claim 10, wherein the sensed change in pressure of the molten polymer is indicative of a change in at least one of a viscosity or a density of the molten polymer (Fitzpatrick [0075] describes the Delta12 being too high indicates the viscosity is too high.)
Regarding claim 12, Fitzpatrick meets the claimed, The method of claim 10, wherein the step of sensing a change in pressure includes sensing a difference between the first measurement of the first variable and the second measurement of the first variable (Fitzpatrick [0074]-[0075] describes measuring both PT1 and PT2 after every Y interval. Since the first variable PT1 is sensed at each Y interval, the difference between these readings is also “sensed.”)
Regarding claim 13, Fitzpatrick meets the claimed, The method of claim 10, wherein the step of sensing a change in pressure includes: sensing a difference between the first measurement of the first variable and the second measurement of the first variable; and sensing a difference between the first measurement of the second variable and the second measurement of the second variable (Fitzpatrick [0074]-[0075] describes measuring both PT1 and PT2 after every Y interval. Since both variables are sensed at each Y interval, the difference between these readings is also “sensed.”)
Regarding claim 14, Fitzpatrick meets the claimed, The method of claim 10, wherein the step of sensing a change in pressure includes sensing a difference between the first measurement of the second variable and the second measurement of the second variable (Fitzpatrick [0074]-[0075] describes measuring both PT1 and PT2 after every Y interval. Since the second variable PT2 is sensed at each Y interval, the difference between these readings is also “sensed.”)
Regarding claim 15, Fitzpatrick meets the claimed, The method of claim 10, wherein the molten polymer is introduced into a cavity of a molding machine (Fitzpatrick [0057] describe providing plastic to a mold cavity 83.)
Regarding claim 1, Fitzpatrick meets the claimed, The method of claim 10, further comprising the steps of: determining a first difference value between the first measurement of the first variable and the first measurement of the second variable; (Fitzpatrick [0074]-[0075] describes obtaining Delta12 which is the difference of PT1 and PT2 at any given Y interval, i.e., the different between the first and second variable at both the first and second measurement) determining a second difference value between the second measurement of the first variable and the second measurement of the second variable; (Fitzpatrick [0074]-[0075] describe the process of determining Delta12 is repeated at different time intervals, the first time the calculation is performed is the first measurement, the second time is the second measurement, etc.) and determining a difference between the first difference value and the baseline pressure drop and a difference between the second difference value and the baseline pressure drop (Fitzpatrick [0075] compared Delta12 at any given time interval to the baseline setpoint.)
Regarding claim 2, Fitzpatrick meets the claimed, The method of claim 10, wherein the step of adjusting at least one control parameter comprises adjusting a pressure value (Fitzpatrick [0075] describes controlling heat sources which would also adjust the pressure of the molten material.)
Regarding claim 3, Fitzpatrick meets the claimed, The method of claim 10, wherein a plurality of melt pressure transducers are used to obtain the first and the second measurements of the first and the second variables (Fitzpatrick [0069] describe a pressure transducer PT1 measures pressure on the screw, [0074] describes the PT1 measurement is taken every Y time interval)
Regarding claim 5, Fitzpatrick meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the difference between the first and the second difference values represents a change in at least one of a viscosity or a density of the molten polymer during the injection cycle (Fitzpatrick [0075] describes the Delta12 being too high indicates the viscosity is too high.)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzpatrick modified by Biesenberger (US 2008/0290538.)
Regarding claim 16, Fitzpatrick describes injection molding and does not meet the claimed, The method of claim 10, wherein the molten polymer is introduced into a die of an extrusion machine.
Analogous in the field of molding an article, Biesenberger also describes a molding method which utilizes pressure sensors and meets the claimed, The method of claim 10, wherein the molten polymer is introduced into a die of an extrusion machine (Biesenberger [0018]-[0019] describe molding a product via an extrusion system with a die.)
The courts have held that substituting one known element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to simply substitute the injection molding machine disclosed in Fitzpatrick for the extrusion machine with the die as described in Biesenberger in order to successfully form a plastic article, see Biesenberger [0018]-[0019].
Regarding claim 17, Fitzpatrick meets the claimed, The method of claim 1,further comprising the steps of comparing the first difference value with the second difference value (Fitzpatrick [0074]-[0075] describe comparing PT1 and PT2 to get Delta12.)
Fitzpatrick does not describe extrusion and does not meet the claimed, extruding a molten polymer through an extrusion die.
Analogous in the field of molding an article, Biesenberger also describes a molding method which utilizes pressure sensors and meets the claimed, extruding a molten polymer through an extrusion die (Biesenberger [0018]-[0019] describe molding a product via an extrusion system with a die.)
The courts have held that substituting one known element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to simply substitute the injection molding machine disclosed in Fitzpatrick for the extrusion machine with the die as described in Biesenberger in order to successfully form a plastic article, see Biesenberger [0018]-[0019].
Regarding claim 18, Fitzpatrick meets the claimed, The method of claim 17, wherein the step of adjusting at least one control parameter comprises adjusting a pressure value (Fitzpatrick [0075] describes controlling heat sources which would also adjust the pressure of the molten material.)
Regarding claim 19, Fitzpatrick meets the claimed, The method of claim 17, wherein a plurality of melt pressure transducers are used to obtain the first and the second measurements of the first and the second variables (Fitzpatrick [0069] describes PT1 and PT2 are pressure transducers.)
Regarding claim 20, Fitzpatrick meets the claimed, The method of claim 19, wherein the plurality of melt pressure transducers are positioned at a location defining a known volume (Fitzpatrick [0081] describes a known volume of material when measured by PT1 and PT2.)
Regarding claim 21, Fitzpatrick meets the claimed, The method of claim 17, wherein the difference between the first and the second difference values represents a change in at least one of a viscosity or a density of the molten polymer during the injection cycle (Fitzpatrick [0075] describes Delta12 is indicative of the viscosity of the polymer.)
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 VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744