DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objections previously set forth. The objections of the claims previously set forth have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejections previously set forth. The 112(b) rejections of the claims previously set forth have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the 101 rejections, (see Amendment, Page 6-7) Applicant’s argues that “claims 1 and 15 do not fall within the "Mental Processes" group of ideas. Applicant has amended claim 1 to claim 15 to recite that the signature element is a heater element of the hot runner assembly, thereby relating the claims to a physical, thermoelectric hardware component of the molding machine. Further, Applicant submits that a heater element's "signature", for example, a transient resistance characteristic, impedance, or an inrush current profile, is an intrinsic physical parameter that changes dynamically under electrical load and heat. A human is incapable of capturing, measuring, or recording microsecond-level transient resistance values of an active high-power heater in real-time, let alone mentally comparing these curves to a reference database.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that amending the claims to recite that signature element is a heater element does not change that the limitation “identify the heater element of the hot runner assembly, by comparing the received signature with the at least one reference signature” of being identified as an abstract idea. (emphasis added)
Examiner agrees that human is incapable of capturing, measuring, or recording microsecond-level transient resistance values of an active high-power heater in real-time. However, the “receive a signature …” and “access a database comprising at least one reference signature … ,” as recited limitations that relate to capturing, measuring, or recording microsecond-level values, are not identified as the abstract idea of the “identify …” limitation. The “receive a signature …” and “access a database comprising at least one reference signature … “ limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering. All uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering. In other words, the gathered signatures are required for the recited abstract idea of “identify the heater element of the hot runner assembly, by comparing the received signature with the at least one reference signature.”
Examiner further respectfully submits that human can mentally compare two signature curves from receiving and accessing. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that “Applicant submits that the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application because it directly improves machine technology. Automatically identifying the heater element allows the control device to immediately load and apply specific startup and operation parameters without human error, providing optimal performance.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that claims 1 and 15 do not recite what and how the operation takes place based on the identifying. Examiner suggests that Applicant amend the claim to recite what and how the operation takes place based on the identifying.
For the foregoing reasons, the arguments are not deemed persuasive, and accordingly, the 101 rejections are maintained.
It may be possible to overcome the 101 rejection if the last limitation of the claim 9 is incorporated into the claims 1 and 15 with appropriate corrections as suggested in Claim Objections section below. Applicant is encouraged to conduct an interview with Examiner to discuss the suggested amendment.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for informalities, lack of antecedent support, or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 3, line 2, replace “signature” with “heater”
Claim 6, line 2, replace “a heater element” with “the heater element”
Claim 7, three instances, lines 3-4, replace “signature” with “heater”
Claim 8, line 3, replace “signature” with “heater”
Claim 9, line 3, replace “element for operating of” with “operate”
Claim 9, line 5, replace “signature set” with “heater element set”
Claim 9, line 5, replace “signature element” with “heater element”
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Duplicate Claims, Warning
Applicant is advised that should independent claim 1 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Claim 6 recites “wherein the signature element is a heater element of the hot runner assembly,” which is identical to “wherein the signature element is a heater element of the hot runner assembly,” as recited in independent claim 1, lines 2-3. Further, claim 6 recites “the received signature is characteristic for the heater element of the hot runner assembly,” which reads on “the signature being characteristic for the heater element of the hot runner assembly,” as recited in independent claim 1, lines 5-6. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites “… identify at least one of an individual heater element or an individual hot runner assembly by comparing …”. Independent claim 1, which claim 5 depends on, recites “identify the heater element of the hot runner assembly, by comparing …”. The feature “identify at least one of an individual heater element or an individual hot runner assembly by comparing … ,” as recited in dependent claim 5 is broader than the feature “identify the heater element of the hot runner assembly, by comparing … ,” as recited in independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1:
(Step 2A, Prong One)
Independent claim 1 recites, “… a processor configured to: ... identify the heater element of the hot runner assembly, by comparing the received signature with the at least one reference signature.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as at least paragraphs [0009] and [0046], for instance, the identify by comparing function is a mental process that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement based on a received data and a stored reference data. That is, other than reciting a “processor” (a generic electronic device or generic computer component), a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of “a signature element installed in an injection molding device, wherein the signature element is a heater element of the hot runner assembly, the hot runner control device comprises a processor configured to: receive a signature from the heater element, the signature being characteristic for the heater element of the hot runner assembly; access a database comprising at least one reference signature being characteristic for the heater element.”
The additional limitation of “a signature element installed in an injection molding device, wherein the signature element is a heater element of the hot runner assembly, the hot runner control device comprises a processor configured to: …” as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used to identify as recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic or computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(f)
The additional limitations of “receive a signature from the heater element, the signature being characteristic for the heater element of the hot runner assembly” and “access a database comprising at least one reference signature being characteristic for the heater element” are an insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).
The claim does not recite an improvement in a technology as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, the additional limitations recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
(Step 2B)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional features including “a signature element installed in an injection molding device, wherein the signature element is a heater element of the hot runner assembly, the hot runner control device comprises a processor configured to: …”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitation may be tools that are used for the functions recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more.
The receive and access functions represents a function that is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, for instance, as demonstrated in Striegel et al. (US 2023/0294345 A1) Abstract (“A hot runner process controller configured to monitor the status and operation of a hot runner system to autonomously generate information to improve the quality of injection molding process of a hot runner system having an inlet nozzle, one or more manifolds and one or more nozzles with actuator or without actuator, and one or more heating elements, the hot runner process controller is self-operating, and independent from the injection molding machine, includes: one or more sensors located on, in or at the hot runner system to detect the status and/or the operation of the hot runner system, and a processing unit and a memory. The processing unit is connected to the one or more sensors, wherein the memory stores data and program codes. The processing unit is configured to load and execute the program code to compare sensor information with the stored data and to determine if the hot runner system is in an operable status, and in case the hot runner system is in an operable status, configured to generate status information to activate the one or more heating elements and/or the one or more actuators enabling a production operation of the injection molding machine. In case the hot runner system is not in an operable status, configured to generate status information to deactivate the one or more heating elements and/or close or deactivate the one or more actuators disabling a production operation of the injection molding machine.”), JIANG (TW M546901 U) paragraph [00002] (“A hot-dip galvanizing mold identification system, in particular, the invention relates to a hot-dip galvanizing mold identification system that connects a hot-dip galvanizing module electrically and informationally to a temperature control device, so that the temperature control device receives a mold parameter of the hot-dip galvanizing mold to be tested, and after comparing the mold parameters, the temperature control device can quickly identify the hot-dip galvanizing module model.”) and paragraph [00025] (“…As shown in the figure, the storage module 1012 includes a first database 1014 and a second database 1015. The first database 1014 is a virtual storage space, which pre-stores at least one mold parameter data.”), and Slisse (US 2024/0051209 A1) paragraph [0041] (“Good results are possible, when the electronic circuit is configured to determine a critical condition of the at least one exchangeable part based at least partially on data received from the at least one sensor. This allows to determine the condition of the at least one exchangeable part, in particular during operation. Preferably, the data received in the electronic circuit from the at least one sensor relates to at least one out of the following: an operating temperature of the at least one exchangeable part or a cycle count of the injection mold, preferably of the at least one exchangeable part. However, other data received from the at least one sensor is possible, depending on the type of sensor, such as pressure data, proximity data etc.”) and paragraph [0028] (“The at least one processor is in this case preferably configured to detect a critical condition of the injection mold based at least partially on data stored in the memory. This allows the at least one processor to detect a critical condition of the injection mold based on stored data, in particular including measured historic data. The input device can be formed as a keyboard or the like, however optical or close range radio interfaces, such as QR code scanner or RFID scanners, or a combination thereof are possible as well.”).
Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 15 is not patent eligible for similar reasons, as explained above, for independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2, 7 and 11 simply add more detail to or are cumulative to the extra solution activities.
Dependent claims 6, 8-10 and 13-14 simply add more detail to or are cumulative to the general recitation of applying the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-5 and 12 simply add more detail to or are cumulative to the abstract idea.
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 MICHAEL W CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-5069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/MICHAEL W CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights