DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 2 July 2026. Claims 1-5 have been amended. Claims 1-5 are pending in this application.
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
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 5, filed 2 July 2026, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 3 April 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 5, filed 2 July 2026, with respect to objected claim 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 2 July 2026. The objection of claim 3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 5-6, filed 2 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 2 July 2026. The rejections of claims 1-5 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 5-6, filed 2 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 2 July 2026. The rejections of claims 1-5 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pgs. 6-7, filed 2 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
These features performed by a processor should be categorized as either (1) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b), or (2) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e). (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 2)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(d):
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Whether or not a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is evaluated using the considerations set forth in subsection I below, in accordance with the procedure described below in subsection II.
II. HOW TO EVALUATE WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS INTEGRATE THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The analysis under Step 2A Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon (including products of nature). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h).
MPEP 2106.05(b) Particular Machine [R-07.2022]
III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE
Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted) ("[N]othing in claim 3 requires an infringer to use the Internet to obtain that data. The Internet is merely described as the source of the data. We have held that mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.’" 654 F.3d at 1375, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citation omitted)). See MPEP § 2106.05(g) & (h) for more information on insignificant extra-solution activity and field of use, respectively.
Claim 1 recites:
“a processor configured to execute the program as to:” in line 13
The limitation of “a processor configured to execute the program” as claimed is recited at a high level of generality that is not more than mere instructions to apply the judicial expectation on a computer component. In light of MPEP 2106.05(b), the claimed “processor” neither integrates a judicial exception nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea since the “processor” only contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method. In addition, the Examiner recognizes the Applicant has not provided arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the additional element of the claimed processor imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception that amount to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components; wherein the courts have found mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”) Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
In addition, dependent claims 2-5 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 that is subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 3)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner refers to the above response, pgs. 3-5, paragraph 7 of this office action, and the argument herein as addressed.
Applicant's arguments, see pgs. 8-10, filed 2 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument
Inasmuch as the combined prior art fails to teach or suggest all the elements of the claim, the combination of prior art cannot render claim 1 unpatentable. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner emphasizes that all anticipated components and limitations
of pending claims are present in the prior art as supported below. In addition, the Examiner notes the newly presented in the Amendment After Non-Final received on 2 July 2006 by the Office, and have been addressed as set forth in the Office Action below.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
Claims 2-5 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and should be in condition for allowance for at least the same reasons as set forth above. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 2)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner refers to the above response, pg. 6, paragraph 10 of this office action, and the argument herein as addressed.
Claim 1 stands objected to, claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 101, and 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 3 recites “… a lower limit value of the threshold of the molded product is configured to be updated …” in lines 3-5. The recitation of “to be” does not positively recite the subsequent limitations of “updated” as occurring and has been interpreted as occurring in the future.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the grammatical error “the second input is in an outside of the range” in lines 31-32. Suggested claim language: ‘the second inputs is outside of the range”; and has been interrupted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0278470 A1 (instant application):
The Cloud server 300 is a server used through the Internet IN. The Cloud server 300 includes a second processing unit 301 and a second storage unit 302. Information concerning an item of a molded product, information concerning standard values of the molded product, information concerning reference values of the molded product, and information concerning a threshold of the molded product are stored in the second storage unit 302 in correlation with one another. The first storage unit 102 of the molding management server 100 and the second storage unit 302 of the Cloud server 300 are collectively referred to as storage unit. Note that the molding management server 100 and the Cloud server 300 may be configured as one server. (pg. 2, par. [0019])
The second processing unit 301 of the Cloud server 300 includes a screen generating unit 310, an input unit 320, a determining unit 330, and an output unit 340. The screen generating unit 310, the input unit 320, the determining unit 330, and the output unit 340 are implemented by the second processing unit 301 executing a program stored in the second storage unit 302. Note that these units may be implemented by circuits. (pg. 3, par. [0027])
Claim 1 recites:
a memory … (line 5);
…
a processor configured to execute the program so as to: (line 13);
…
… the processor determines that the second input is within the range … (lines 28-29);
…
Claim 2 recites:
the memory …
Claim 4 recites:
the processor … (line 5)
Claim 5 recites:
the processor … (line 3)
In summary, the specification (as filed on 21 February 2024) discloses a cloud server including a determining unit, input unit, and output unit and not the claimed limitations of “a memory” and “a processor”. Hence, the only support for of “a memory” and “a processor” are found in claims as filed on 2 July 2026.
Claims 2-5, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 5, dependent from claim 4, stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the claim recites “a molding management system” comprising of concrete devices, and therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “determine whether the second input is within a range that satisfies the standard value”.
The limitation of “determine whether the second input is within a range that satisfies the standard value”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determin(ing)” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis (e.g. a comparison) of data to confirm the data is with a boundary of two values. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “an interface through which information is input and output”; “a display configured to display the information on a screen of the display”; “a memory configured to store a program and, in correlation, information concerning an item of a molded product, information concerning a standard value, which is a value concerning a specification of the molded product to determine whether the molded product is defective, and information concerning a threshold, which is a value to determine a preliminary indicating sign of the defect of the molded product prior to determining whether the molded product is defective by referring to the standard value”; and “a processor configured to execute the program so as to: receive a first input relating to the information concerning the item of the molded product via the interface from an operator and cause the display to display the information concerning the item of the molded product on the screen; cause the display to display a corresponding standard value of the information concerning the standard value of the molded product on the screen, the corresponding standard value being correlated to the first input; receive a second input relating to the information concerning the threshold of the molded product via the interface from the operator; cause the display to display the second input when the processor determines that the second input is within the range; cause the display to display a warning to the operator when the second input is in an outside of the range; and operate a molding process to make the molded product in reference to the first input and the second input”.
The limitations of “an interface through which information is input and output”, “a display … a screen of the display”, “a memory”, and “a processor configured to execute the program …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “a molding process to make the molded product” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… store a program and, in correlation, information concerning an item of a molded product, information concerning a standard value, which is a value concerning a specification of the molded product to determine whether the molded product is defective, and information concerning a threshold, which is a value to determine a preliminary indicating sign of the defect of the molded product prior to determining whether the molded product is defective by referring to the standard value”,
“receive a first input relating to the information concerning the item of the molded product … from an operator …”, and “receive a second input relating to the information concerning the threshold of the molded product … from the operator” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “store” and “receive” are recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… display the information on a screen of the display”, “… display the information concerning the item of the molded product on the screen “… display a corresponding standard value of the information concerning the standard value of the molded product on the screen, the corresponding standard value being correlated to the first input”, “… display the second input when the processor determines that the second input is within the range”; and “… display a warning to the operator when the second input is in an outside of the range” represent the mere output of data. The limitations of “display” are recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… operate a molding process to make the molded product in reference to the first input and the second input” is a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “an interface through which information is input and output”, “a display … a screen of the display”, “a memory”, and “a processor configured to execute the program” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “a molding process to make the molded product” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… store a program and, in correlation, information concerning an item of a molded product, information concerning a standard value, which is a value concerning a specification of the molded product to determine whether the molded product is defective, and information concerning a threshold, which is a value to determine a preliminary indicating sign of the defect of the molded product prior to determining whether the molded product is defective by referring to the standard value”, “receive a first input relating to the information concerning the item of the molded product … from an operator …”, and “receive a second input relating to the information concerning the threshold of the molded product … from the operator”, as discussed above, amount to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “… display the information on a screen of the display”, “… display the information concerning the item of the molded product on the screen “… display a corresponding standard value of the information concerning the standard value of the molded product on the screen, the corresponding standard value being correlated to the first input”, “… display the second input when the processor determines that the second input is within the range”, and “… display a warning to the operator when the second input is in an outside of the range”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “presenting offers and gathering”.
The limitation of “… operate a molding process to make the molded product in reference to the first input and the second input” represents an equivalent recitation of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… the memory stores information concerning a reference value, which is a value concerning a reference of the specification of the molded product, and the information concerning the reference value of the molded product is displayed on the screen”.
The limitations of “the memory” and “the screen” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… stores information concerning a reference value, which is a value concerning a reference of the specification of the molded product” represent mere data gathering. The limitation of “stores” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… the information concerning the reference value of the molded product is displayed …” represents the mere output of data. The limitation of “displayed” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “the memory” and “the screen” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… stores information concerning a reference value, which is a value concerning a reference of the specification of the molded product”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… the information concerning the reference value of the molded product is displayed …”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “presenting offers and gathering”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… an upper limit value of the threshold of the molded product and a lower limit value of the threshold of the molded product is configured to be updated”.
The limitation of “… an upper limit value of the threshold of the molded product and a lower limit value of the threshold of the molded product is configured to be updated” represent mere data gathering. The limitation of “updated” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… an upper limit value of the threshold of the molded product and a lower limit value of the threshold of the molded product is configured to be updated”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Claim 4:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “determine, based on the information concerning the standard value of the molded product, correctness of the information concerning the threshold of the molded product …”.
The limitation of “determine, based on the information concerning the standard value of the molded product, correctness of the information concerning the threshold of the molded product …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determin(ing)” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis (e.g. a comparison) of data to confirm accuracy of the data . (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “the processor …” and “… the threshold of the molded product received via the interface”.
The limitations of “the processor” and “the interface” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… the threshold of the molded product received …” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “received” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “the processor” and “the interface” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… the threshold of the molded product received …”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… determines that the information concerning the threshold of the molded product …”.
The limitation of “… determines that the information concerning the threshold of the molded product …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determin(ing)” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis (e.g. a comparison) of data to confirm accuracy of the data . (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “the processor is further configured to output another warning to the operator via the display when the processor determines that the information concerning the threshold of the molded product received via the interface is wrong”.
The limitations of “the processor” and “the display” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… the information concerning the threshold of the molded product received via the interface is wrong” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “received” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… output another warning to the operator …” represents the mere output of data. The limitation of “output” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represent more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “the processor” and “the display” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… the information concerning the threshold of the molded product received via the interface is wrong”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… output another warning to the operator …”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “presenting offers and gathering”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0103184 A1 (hereinafter Morikawa) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0051064 A1 (hereinafter Tsukihara) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0039274 A1 (hereinafter Fick), Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2020-124829 A (hereinafter Miyazaki), and U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220134623A1 (hereinafter Kozuka).
As per claim 1, Morikawa substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Morikawa teaches the limitations of a molding management system comprising:
an interface (i.e. a touch panel) through which information is input and output (pg. 4, par. [0068]; i.e. “… 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 …”);
a display (Fig. 1, element 30; i.e. a display portion) configured to display the information on a screen of the display (pg. 5, par. [0073]; i.e. “The injection molding machine according to this embodiment is characterized in that a manual setting mode, that is, a method in which the operator suitably selects a setting screen to be displayed on the display portion 30 and inputs a required setting value for a necessary setting item …”);
a memory (Fig. 1, element 23; i.e. an internal memory of a storage portion) configured to store, in correlation, information concerning an item of a molded product (i.e. product names of molded articles) and information concerning a standard value (pgs. 4-5, par. [0071] and [0072]; i.e. operating conditions);
receive a first input relating to the information concerning the item of the molded product via the interface from an operator and cause the display to display the information concerning the item of the molded product on the screen (Fig. 1, element 40) for enabling update of the information concerning the molded product is provided on the screen (pg. 5, par. [0073]; i.e. “… the input portion 40 is used for inputting a required setting value in a setting item field displayed in each setting screen.”); and
cause the display to display a corresponding standard value of the information concerning the standard value of the molded product on the screen, the corresponding standard value being correlated to the first input (pg. 4, par. [0071 and pg. 5, par. [0073] and [0076]; i.e. [0071]: “The molding condition files are files for storing various kinds of setting values for determining operating conditions of the molding mechanism portion 10.”; [0073]: “Setting of the molding conditions is performed in such a manner that the setting screens of the pages stored in the storage portion 23 are displayed successively on the display portion 30 and the input portion 40 is used for inputting a required setting value in a setting item field displayed in each setting screen.”, and [0076]: “Setting of molding conditions in the case where "molding navigation" is selected goes on in accordance with a procedure of a flow chart shown in FIG. 4.”).
Not explicitly taught are
a memory configured to store a program and, in correlation, information to determine whether the molded product is defective and information concerning a threshold, which is a value to determine a preliminary indicating sign of the defect of the molded product prior to determining whether the molded product is defective by referring to the standard value;
a processor configured to execute the program so as to:
receive a second input relating to the information concerning the threshold of the molded product via the interface from the operator;
cause the display to display the second input when the processor determines that the second input is within the range;
cause the display to display a warning to the operator when the second input is in an outside of the range; and
operate a molding process to make the molded product in reference to the first input and the second input.
However Tsukihara, in an analogous art of a molding system (pg. 2, par. [0020]), teaches the missing limitations of information concerning a threshold, which is a value to determine a sign of a defect of a molded product prior (pgs. 3-4, par. [0040] and [0043]; i.e. [0040]: “… through operation of the input section, an operator sets the threshold for determining whether a molded product is good or defective.” and [0043]: “First, an operator enters various items through operation of the input section of the management apparatus 18.”); and
a processor and a program (pg. 1, par. [0005] and [0010] and pg. 3, par. [0037]; i.e. [0005]: “… a molding machine monitoring apparatus, method, and program which calculate and set a threshold used for determining whether a molded product is good or defective” and [0037]: “The management apparatus 18 is a computer which includes computation means (e.g., a CPU, an MPU, etc.); storage means (e.g., a magnetic disc, a semiconductor memory, etc.); an input/output interface; an input section including a keyboard, a joystick, a touch panel, etc.; a display section including a CRT, a liquid crystal display, an LED (Light Emitting Diode) display, or the like; etc.”) so as to:
receive a second input relating to the information concerning the threshold of the molded product via an interface (i.e. touch panel) from an operator (pg. 2, par. [0037] and [0040]; i.e. [0037]: “The management apparatus 18 is a computer which includes computation means (e.g., a CPU, an MPU, etc.); storage means (e.g., a magnetic disc, a semiconductor memory, etc.); an input/output interface; an input section including a keyboard, a joystick, a touch panel, etc.; a display section including a CRT, a liquid crystal display, an LED (Light Emitting Diode) display, or the like; etc.” and [0040]: “… through operation of the input section, an operator sets the threshold for determining whether a molded product is good or defective.”) for the purpose of monitoring a molded product (pg. 3, par. [0039] and [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Morikawa to include the addition of the limitations of information concerning a threshold, which is a value to determine a sign of a defect of a molded product prior; and a processor and a program so as to: receive a second input relating to the information concerning the threshold of the molded product via an interface from an operator to advantageously enable accurate determination of whether a molded product is good or defective (Tsukihara: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Morikawa in view of Tsukihara does not expressly teach a memory configured to store a program and, in correlation, information to determine whether the molded product is defective and information concerning a threshold, which is a value to determine a preliminary indicating sign of the defect of the molded product prior to determining whether the molded product is defective by referring to the standard value;
a processor configured to execute the program so as to:
cause the display to display the second input when the processor determines that the second input is within the range;
cause the display to display a warning to the operator when the second input is in an outside of the range; and
operate a molding process to make the molded product in reference to the first input and the second input.
However Fick, in an analogous art of injection molding (pg. 1, par. [0002] and pg. 2, par. [0024]), teaches the missing limitation of a memory (pg. 2, par. [0023]; i.e. “A control unit 14 carries out the actual control of the production process. For this purpose, control unit 14 comprises at least a data storage device and a processor.”) configured to store information to determine whether a molded product is defective (pg. 2, par. [0024]; i.e. “The quality characteristic and the quality tolerance range are predefined. The quality characteristic and the quality tolerance range for an injection molded part are a weight, a dimensional accuracy, a size, a burr formation, a form filling, a burn mark, etc. The quality tolerance range is preferably stored in the data storage device”) for the purpose of monitoring a quality of molded parts (pg. 2, par. [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Morikawa in view of Tsukihara to include the addition of the limitation of a memory configured to store information to determine whether a molded product is defective to advantageously improve performing a cyclic production process (Fick: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Morikawa in view of Tsukihara in view of Fick does not expressly teach a memory configured to store a program and, in correlation, information concerning a threshold, which is a value to determine a preliminary indicating sign of the defect of the molded product prior to determining whether the molded product is defective by referring to the standard value;
a processor configured to execute the program so as to:
cause the display to display the second input when the processor determines that the second input is within the range;
cause the display to display a warning to the operator when the second input is in an outside of the range; and
operate a molding process to make the molded product in reference to the first input and the second input.
However Miyazaki, in an analogous art of a molding machine (pg. 5, paragraph 1), teaches the missing limitations of a memory (pg. 9, paragraph 3; i.e. “The storage means 3 in the molding condition set value input device 1 has a molding condition set value storage unit 12, a molding machine outside information storage unit 13, and a setting allowable range storage unit 14 …”) configured to store information concerning a threshold, which is a value to determine a preliminary data (i.e. molding condition setting value) related to a molded product prior to determining additional information related to the molded product by referring to a standard value (pg. 9, paragraphs 4, 8, and 9; i.e. “setting allowable range” and pg. 9, paragraph 4: “The molding condition set value storage unit 12 in the storage unit 3 is changed by being input to the set value input unit 11 in the setter 7 when displayed together with the molding condition set value display unit 6 on the display screen 5.” and pg. 9, paragraph 9: “However, it is provided so as to determine whether or not the molding condition setting value input to the setting value input unit 11 of the setting device 7 is included in the setting allowable range.”);
a control means (pg. 9, paragraph 7 and Fig. 2, element 4) to:
receive a second input relating to the information concerning the threshold of the molded product via an interface (pg. 6, paragraph 3 and Fig. 5, element 7; i.e. a setting device 7) from an operator (pg. 9, paragraphs 4, 8, and 9; i.e. pg. 9, paragraph 4: “The molding condition set value storage unit 12 in the storage unit 3 is changed by being input to the set value input unit 11 in the setter 7 when displayed together with the molding condition set value display unit 6 on the display screen 5.”);
cause a display (pg. 6, paragraph 3 and Fig. 5, element 7; i.e. a setting device 7) to display the second input when the control means (Fig. 2, element 4) determines that the second input is within a range (pg. 9, paragraph 10; i.e. “Then, as a result of the determination, when the molding condition setting value input by the operator through the setting device 7 falls within the setting allowable range, the input molding condition setting value is stored in the molding condition setting value storage unit of the storage unit 3. 12 is stored as a set value in the molding condition setting item in 12, and the molding condition set value is displayed on the display section 8 in the molding condition set value display section 6 of the display screen 5 …”);
cause the display (Fig. 5, element 7; i.e. the setting device 7) to display a warning to the operator when the second input is in an outside of the range (pg. 10, paragraph 2; i.e. “… when the worker uses the setter 7 to input a molding condition setting value that does not fall within the setting allowable range, the control unit 4 sets the input setting value (input value) to the setting allowable range. … the control means 4 controls the display operation of the display means 2 so that an alarm is displayed on the display screen 5 of the display means 2 so that the display means 2 also serves as the warning means 18.”); and
operate a molding process to make the molded product in reference to a first input and the second input (pg. 10, paragraph 3, pg. 10, paragraph 7, pg. 11, paragraph 6; i.e. pg. 10, paragraph 3: “The storage unit 3 is caused to perform a storage operation of storing the input value input as a set value in the setter 7 so that the set value is reflected in the operation of the injection molding machine A. In some cases (when setting values are input in a range limited by relative value setting)”, pg. 10, paragraph 7: “There is also a setting device for limiting the setting range, etc., and information outside the molding machine for each peripheral device that can be used and outside the molding machine for each molding material that can be used is also input in advance using these setting devices for setting range limitation.”, and pg. 11, paragraph 6: “The relative value (relative value will be described later) can be further limited, and the upper limit value and the lower limit value can be set to narrow the setting allowable range during manual operation of the injection molding machine during adjustment operation before molding of the molded product.”) for the purpose of controlling an injection molding machine for the purpose of setting values to control a molding machine (pg. 2, paragraph 2 and paragraph 10 – pg. 3, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Morikawa in view of Tsukihara in view of Fick to include the addition of the limitations of a memory configured to store information concerning a threshold, which is a value to determine a preliminary data related to a molded product prior to determining additional information related to the molded product by referring to a standard value; a control means to: receive a second input relating to the information concerning the threshold of the molded product via an interface; cause a display to display the second input when the control means determines that the second input is within a range; cause the display to display a warning to the operator when the second input is in an outside of the range; and operate a molding process to make the molded product in reference to a first input and the second input to advantageously avoid an erroneous input to a molding machine that would cause damage to the molding machine (Miyazaki: abstract).
Morikawa in view of Tsukihara in view of Fick and Miyazaki does not expressly teach a processor configured to execute the program.
However Kozuka, in an analogous art of a molding machine (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of a processor configured to execute a program (pg. 5,l par. [0056] and [0057]; i.e. [0056]: “The molding machine controller 7 includes a controller body 22 having a computer function including hardware such as a CPU, and an internal memory 22m in which registration data 22md including various data and programs are written. A display 7d is connected to the controller body 22.” and [0057]: “… the molding machine controller 7 includes the HMI control system and the PLC control system, and the internal memory 22m stores the PLC program and the HMI program. The PLC program executes sequence operations of various processes in the injection molding machine M, monitoring of the injection molding machine M, and the like, and the HMI program executes setting and display of the operation parameters of the injection molding machine M, display of the operation monitoring data of the injection molding machine M, and the like.”) for the purpose of monitoring and controlling various processes in a molding machine (pg. 5, par. [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Morikawa in view of Tsukihara in view of Fick and Miyazaki to include the addition of the limitation a processor configured to execute a program to advantageously reduce deterioration of a resin and generation of unnecessary gases in a molding process (Kozuka: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
As per claim 2, Morikawa in view of Tsukihara in view of Fick does not expressly teach the memory stores information concerning a reference value, which is a value concerning a reference of the specification of the molded product, and
the information concerning the reference value of the molded product is displayed on the screen.
However Miyazaki, in an analogous art of a molding machine (pg. 5, paragraph 1), teaches the missing limitations of a memory (pg. 9, paragraph 3 and Fig. 1, element 3; i.e. “The storage means 3 in the molding condition set value input device 1 has a molding condition set value storage unit 12, a molding machine outside information storage unit 13, and a setting allowable range storage unit 14 …”) stores information concerning a reference value, which is a value concerning a reference of a specification of a molded product (pg. 3, paragraph 1; i.e. “A molding condition setting value storage unit (12) for storing the setting value of the molding condition input to the setting value input unit (11) of the setting device (7), mold management information of the mold in the injection molding machine, and injection molding.”), and the information concerning the reference value of the molded product is displayed on a screen (pg. 3, paragraph 1; i.e. “The display means (2) is caused to display the setting device (7) having an allowable range display portion (10) for displaying the setting allowable range, and the read setting allowable range of the setting device (7) is displayed.”) for the purpose of setting values to control a molding machine (pg. 2, paragraph 2 and paragraph 10 – pg. 3, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Morikawa in view of Tsukihara in view of Fick to include the addition of the limitations of a memory stores information concerning a reference value, which is a value concerning a reference of a specification of a molded product, and the information concerning the reference value of the molded product is displayed on a screen to advantageously provide ease and correctness in updating a setting that avoids an erroneous input to a molding machine that would cause damage to the molding machine (Miyazaki: abstract).
As per claim 3, Morikawa in view of Tsukihara in view of Fick does not expressly teach an upper limit value of the threshold of the molded product and the lower limit value of the threshold of the molded product can be updated.
However Miyazaki, in an analogous art of a molding machine (pg. 5, paragraph 1), teaches the missing limitation of an upper limit value of the threshold of the molded product and a lower limit value of the threshold of the molded product is configured to be updated (pg. 12, paragraph 3; i.e. “FIG. 6 shows a state in which a setting allowable range (limited range) is displayed on the allowable range display portion 10 of the setting device 7, and the worker inputs a set value within the displayed setting allowable range.”) for the purpose of setting values to control a molding machine (pg. 2, paragraph 2 and paragraph 10 – pg. 3, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Morikawa in view of Tsukihara in view of Fick to include the addition of the limitation of an upper limit value of the threshold of the molded product and a lower limit value of the threshold of the molded product can be updated to advantageously provide ease and correctness in updating a setting that avoids an erroneous input to a molding machine that would cause damage to the molding machine (Miyazaki: abstract).
As per claim 4, Morikawa does not expressly teach the processor is further configured to determine, based on the information concerning the standard value of the molded product, correctness of the information concerning the threshold of the molded product received via the interface.
However Tsukihara, in an analogous art of a molding system (pg. 2, par. [0020]), teaches the missing limitations of the processor (pg. 1, par. [0005] and [0010] and pg. 3, par. [0037]; i.e. [0005]: “… a molding machine monitoring apparatus, method, and program which calculate and set a threshold used for determining whether a molded product is good or defective” and [0037]: “The management apparatus 18 is a computer which includes computation means (e.g., a CPU, an MPU, etc.); storage means (e.g., a magnetic disc, a semiconductor memory, etc.); an input/output interface; an input section including a keyboard, a joystick, a touch panel, etc.; a display section including a CRT, a liquid crystal display, an LED (Light Emitting Diode) display, or the like; etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Morikawa to include the addition of the limitation of the processor to advantageously enable accurate determination of whether a molded product is good or defective (Tsukihara: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Morikawa in view of Tsukihara does not expressly teach determine, based on the information concerning the standard value of the molded product, correctness of the information concerning the threshold of the molded product received via the interface.
Morikawa in view of Tsukihara in view of Fick does not expressly teach determine, based on the information concerning the standard value of the molded product, correctness of the information concerning the threshold of the molded product received via the interface.
However Miyazaki, in an analogous art of a molding machine (pg. 5, paragraph 1), teaches the missing limitation of determine, based on information concerning the standard value of the molded product, correctness of the information concerning the threshold of the molded product received via the interface (pg. 10, paragraphs 1 and 2 and Fig.3, element 7; i.e. a setter and paragraph 2: “… when the worker uses the setter 7 to input a molding condition setting value that does not fall within the setting allowable range, the control unit 4 sets the input setting value (input value) to the setting allowable range.”) for the purpose of setting values to control a molding machine (pg. 2, paragraph 2 and paragraph 10 – pg. 3, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Morikawa in view of Tsukihara in view of Fick to include the addition of the limitation of determine, based on information concerning the standard value of the molded product, correctness of the information concerning the threshold of the molded product received via the interface to advantageously provide ease and correctness in updating a setting that avoids an erroneous input to a molding machine that would cause damage to the molding machine (Miyazaki: abstract).
As per claim 5, Morikawa does not expressly teach the processor is further configured to output another warning to the operator via the display when the processor determines that the information concerning the threshold of the molded product received via the interface is wrong.
However Tsukihara, in an analogous art of a molding system (pg. 2, par. [0020]), teaches the missing limitations of the processor (pg. 1, par. [0005] and [0010] and pg. 3, par. [0037]; i.e. [0005]: “… a molding machine monitoring apparatus, method, and program which calculate and set a threshold used for determining whether a molded product is good or defective” and [0037]: “The management apparatus 18 is a computer which includes computation means (e.g., a CPU, an MPU, etc.); storage means (e.g., a magnetic disc, a semiconductor memory, etc.); an input/output interface; an input section including a keyboard, a joystick, a touch panel, etc.; a display section including a CRT, a liquid crystal display, an LED (Light Emitting Diode) display, or the like; etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Morikawa to include the addition of the limitation of the processor to advantageously enable accurate determination of whether a molded product is good or defective (Tsukihara: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Morikawa in view of Tsukihara does not expressly teach output another warning to the operator via the display when the processor determines that the information concerning the threshold of the molded product received via the interface is wrong.
Morikawa in view of Tsukihara in view of Fick does not expressly teach output another warning to the operator via the display when the processor determines that the information concerning the threshold of the molded product received via the interface is wrong.
However Miyazaki, in an analogous art of a molding machine (pg. 5, paragraph 1), teaches the missing limitation output another warning to the operator via the display when the control means (Fig. 2, element 4; i.e. the control means) determines that the information concerning the threshold of the molded product received via the interface (Fig.3, element 7; i.e. the setter) is wrong (pg. 10, paragraph 2; i.e. “… when the worker uses the setter 7 to input a molding condition setting value that does not fall within the setting allowable range, the control unit 4 sets the input setting value (input value) to the setting allowable range. … the control means 4 controls the display operation of the display means 2 so that an alarm is displayed on the display screen 5 of the display means 2 so that the display means 2 also serves as the warning means 18.”) for the purpose of setting values to control a molding machine (pg. 2, paragraph 2 and paragraph 10 – pg. 3, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Morikawa in view of Tsukihara in view of Fick to include the addition of the limitation of output another warning to the operator via the display when the control means determines that the information concerning the threshold of the molded product received via the interface is wrong to advantageously avoid an erroneous input to a molding machine that would cause damage to the molding machine (Miyazaki: abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to molding, configuration, and monitoring systems/methods.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0194705 A1 discloses a system and method for monitoring and controlling a plastic forming process.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0152903 A1 discloses a molding machine management system and a computer program.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0326306 A1 discloses a dataset creation method, a learning model generation method, a computer program, and a dataset creation device.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0135699 A1 discloses a monitoring device for an injection molding machine includes circuitry configured to acquire first data from a sensor provided in the injection molding machine.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2026/0158721 A1 discloses a molding management system for managing production of a product in an injection molding process of the product by an injection molding device
U.S. Patent No. 12,311,590 B2 discloses a molding machine management device coupled to a molding machine.
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 JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights