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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The claims refer to first and second test moldings. The “first” and “second” modifiers are being interpreted as referring to first and second types of test moldings. That is, there can be more than one “first” test molding and/or more than one “second” test molding. Note the applicant’s Figure 6, which shows a first test molding at step S203 and a potential loop at step S104 depending on whether the mold cavity was fully filled. See also steps S206 and S108 regarding the second test molding.
Additionally, the above interpretation is required by the language of independent claims 1 and 2. Specifically, each of these claims recites that the guidance screen includes a first input field configured to receive an input of conditions upon completion of the filling process in a first test molding, and that, in the first test molding, the filling process is performed under the conditions input to the first input field. This arrangement is not possible in the case where the “first test molding” refers to a single molding cycle because there is no way to perform a particular molding cycle using conditions that are not input until after the cycle is completed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2010/057231 (“Friesenbichler”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Friesenbichler discloses a display device of an injection molding machine (Fig. 1, attached translation: “For the purpose of semi-automatic, guided initial setting of the injection molding machine 1, a start assist 15 is implemented as a program module in its control device 14. This software engineering start-up assistant 15 is implemented in the manner of a so-called wizard, as it is known from many conventional computer-based application programs. In this case, the operator via a user interface, in particular via various input and output means 16 of the control device 14, for example via a screen with touch screen, gradually and systematically passed through the different phases of the initial setting. The control device 14 and / or the start assist 15 can be embodied as an integral part of the injection molding machine 1 and / or as structurally independent, possibly also as a central unit for a plurality of injection molding machines 1.”), the display device comprising:
a circuit configured to display a guidance screen that assists in providing conditions of an injection process (see above),
wherein
the injection process sequentially includes a filling process of controlling a travel speed of an injection member, a stopping process of stopping travel of the injection member, and a dwelling process of controlling a pressure applied from the injection member to a molding material (This language does not limit the structure of the claimed display device beyond what is disclosed by Friesenbichler. See MPEP 2114(II). Regardless, Friesenbichler discloses: “Then, in the so-called injection phase, the plasticized material is ejected through the nozzle 7 in the front portion of the plasticizing unit 5 and pressed into the mold tool 4 abutting the nozzle 7 until it is completely filled. The injection of the molding material is carried out by an initially speed-controlled, axial forward sliding of the worm shaft 9”; “At the end of the injection phase, the mold tool 4 is completely filled and it is switched by the speed-controlled, axial forward movement of the worm shaft 9 to a pressure-controlled movement, with only a relatively small way is covered, until the worm shaft 9 finally stops.”),
the guidance screen includes a first input field configured to receive an input of conditions upon completion of the filling process in a first test molding (“This software engineering start-up assistant 15 is implemented in the manner of a so-called wizard, as it is known from many conventional computer-based application programs. In this case, the operator via a user interface, in particular via various input and output means 16 of the control device 14, for example via a screen with touch screen, gradually and systematically passed through the different phases of the initial setting.”; “It is also characteristic of the setting process that usually also a number of trial production cycles are carried out, whereby the produced Parts of the operator in terms of easy-to-determine quality characteristics as objective as possible, but in part to be assessed subjectively. The results of this assessment are entered in each case in the start-up assistants 15 and used by this for further adjustment and improvement of the machine setting, until finally moldings of sufficiently good basic quality can be achieved.”; “Starting a test phase (V) in which several completely or at least partially performed manufacturing cycles are performed with different process parameters and the process variables occurring are determined automatically or by interaction with an operator by fulfilling certain test criteria for the finished molded parts by an operator and the respective result is entered in the start-up assistant (15), and wherein an automated determination of a set of suitable setting parameters and process limits on the basis of…”.), and
in the first test molding, the filling process is performed under the conditions input to the first input field and subsequently the stopping process is performed (This language does not limit the structure of the claimed display device beyond what is disclosed by Friesenbichler. See MPEP 2114(II).), and
claim 1: then the dwelling process is performed under conditions that enable confirming a position of the molding material upon completion of the stopping process, the position being a position of a forward end of the molding material in a direction in which the molding material flows (This language does not limit the structure of the claimed display device beyond what is disclosed by Friesenbichler. See MPEP 2114(II). Regardless, Friesenbichler discloses: “After the investigations described above, several trial-and-error production cycles or injection tests follow, the injection process being carried out in a conventional manner with reduced speed, but in contrast to a regular production cycle during the cooling time of the molding compound, no pressurization is applied.”; “One or more times carrying out trial manufacturing cycles each without emphasis phase, wherein subsequently depending on the respective achieved or determined degree of filling of the mold tool one or more of the parameters comprising injection pressure limitation, injection speed, switching point condition on holding pressure phase, temperature of the molding material and / or the mold tool with the aim of increasing the degree of filling of the mold tool (4) are adapted”.).
claim 2: then the dwelling process is performed under conditions in which the pressure applied from the injection member to the molding material is approximately zero (This language does not limit the structure of the claimed display device beyond what is disclosed by Friesenbichler. See MPEP 2114(II). Regardless, Friesenbichler discloses: “After the investigations described above, several trial-and-error production cycles or injection tests follow, the injection process being carried out in a conventional manner with reduced speed, but in contrast to a regular production cycle during the cooling time of the molding compound, no pressurization is applied.”; “One or more times carrying out trial manufacturing cycles each without emphasis phase, wherein subsequently depending on the respective achieved or determined degree of filling of the mold tool one or more of the parameters comprising injection pressure limitation, injection speed, switching point condition on holding pressure phase, temperature of the molding material and / or the mold tool with the aim of increasing the degree of filling of the mold tool (4) are adapted”.).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Friesenbichler discloses that:
the guidance screen includes a second input field configured to receive an input of conditions of the dwelling process in a second test molding performed after the first test molding (“This software engineering start-up assistant 15 is implemented in the manner of a so-called wizard, as it is known from many conventional computer-based application programs. In this case, the operator via a user interface, in particular via various input and output means 16 of the control device 14, for example via a screen with touch screen, gradually and systematically passed through the different phases of the initial setting.”; “It is also characteristic of the setting process that usually also a number of trial production cycles are carried out, whereby the produced Parts of the operator in terms of easy-to-determine quality characteristics as objective as possible, but in part to be assessed subjectively. The results of this assessment are entered in each case in the start-up assistants 15 and used by this for further adjustment and improvement of the machine setting, until finally moldings of sufficiently good basic quality can be achieved.”; “After successful completion of trial manufacturing cycles as described above, at least one complete manufacturing cycle is performed with the previously determined process parameters including pressurization.”), and
in the second test molding, the filling process is performed under the conditions input to the first input field and subsequently the stopping process is performed, and then the dwelling process is performed under the conditions input to the second input field (This language does not limit the structure of the claimed display device beyond what is disclosed by Friesenbichler. See MPEP 2114(II).).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, see Figs. 1-2 of Friesenbichler.
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.
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 3, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friesenbichler.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Friesenbichler does not explicitly disclose that the guidance screen includes a first determination field configured to receive an input indicating that the position of the molding material upon completion of the stopping process reaches a desired position in the first test molding. However, this feature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given that Friesenbichler discloses: “After the investigations described above, several trial-and-error production cycles or injection tests follow, the injection process being carried out in a conventional manner with reduced speed, but in contrast to a regular production cycle during the cooling time of the molding compound, no pressurization is applied. In usually several cycles trial parts are manufactured and then tested. If necessary, an attempt is then made by adapting process parameters to Grad of the mold tool 4 and the shape of the finished moldings gradually improve and, where appropriate, to correct the position or the switching criterion for switching to reprint. If it is possible to fill the mold tool 4 with the selected parameters to at least 95%, and if the set limit pressure is not exceeded, then the next phase is changed, in which the appropriate amount of emphasis is determined via the start-up assistant 15.”.
Regarding claim 5, Friesenbichler does not explicitly disclose that the guidance screen includes a second determination field configured to receive an input indicating that a molded product having a desired quality is produced in the second test molding. However, this feature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given that Friesenbichler discloses: “After successful completion of trial manufacturing cycles as described above, at least one complete manufacturing cycle is performed with the previously determined process parameters including pressurization”.
Regarding claim 6, Friesenbichler does not explicitly disclose that the guidance screen includes a display field configured to collectively display the conditions input to the first input field and the conditions input to the second input field, apart from the first input field and the second input field. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given that it is well known in the art to display an overview or summary of selected molding conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, see the abstract and Fig. 3 of WO 2010/137460 (“Aiba”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John DeRusso whose telephone number is (571)270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00 AM-6:00 PM ET.
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 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.
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744