DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-7 and 9-13 in the reply filed on 5 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5 January 2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” or more specifically for this instant application “Provided is” in L1, etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites an instance where the cold-start prevention part uses “a value shorter than the initial value as the cold-start prevention time” on L27-29 and reports “a value shorter than the initial value as the cold-start prevention time” on L29-31. It is unclear whether either of these instances are the same as “a value shorter than an initial value [that] will be used as the cold-start prevention time” as cited in claim 1 L19-20 or a different instance of “a value shorter than an initial value as the cold-start prevention time”. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed the instances in claim 2 will be referencing the instance in claim 1.
As claims 9-12 are dependent on claim 2, they stand as rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 5 recites an instance of “a value shorter than the initial value as the cold-start prevention time” on p.2 L32-33. It is unclear whether this instance are the same as “a value shorter than an initial value [that] will be used as the cold-start prevention time” as cited in claim 1 L19-20 or a different instance of “a value shorter than an initial value as the cold-start prevention time” as “being based on a set temperature and actual temperature of the cylinder or the mold part at a point when the first condition is met” on p.2 L33-p.3 L2. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the instance in claim 5 will be referencing the instance in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites an instance of “a value shorter than the initial value as the cold-start prevention time” on p.3 L9-10. It is unclear whether this instance are the same as “a value shorter than an initial value [that] will be used as the cold-start prevention time” as cited in claim 1 on p.1 L19-20 or a different instance of “a value shorter than an initial value as the cold-start prevention time” as “being based on a time lag between a point when the first condition is met and completion of heating of the cylinder or the mold part” on p.3 L33-p.3 L2. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the instance in claim 6 will be referencing the instance in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites an instance of “a value shorter than the initial value as the cold-start prevention time” on p.5 L4-5. It is unclear whether this instance are the same as “a value shorter than an initial value [that] will be used as the cold-start prevention time” as cited in claim 1 L19-20, an instance of “a value shorter than the initial value as the cold-start prevention time” as cited in claim 2 on p.1 L27-29 and p.1 L29-31 or a different instance of “a value shorter than an initial value as the cold-start prevention time” as “being based on a set temperature and actual temperature of the cylinder or the mold part at a point when the first condition is met” on p.5 L5-7. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the instance in claim11 will be referencing the instance in claim 1.
Claim 12 recites an instance of “a value shorter than the initial value as the cold-start prevention time” on p.5 L14-15. It is unclear whether this instance are the same as “a value shorter than an initial value [that] will be used as the cold-start prevention time” as cited in claim 1 on p.1 L19-20, an instance of “a value shorter than the initial value as the cold-start prevention time” as cited in claim 2 on p.1 L27-29 and p.1 L29-31 or a different instance of “a value shorter than an initial value as the cold-start prevention time” as “being based on a time lag between a point when the first condition is met and completion of heating of the cylinder or the mold part” on p.5 L15-17. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the instance in 12 will be referencing the instance in claim 1.
Claim 13 recites an instance of “a value shorter than the initial value as the cold-start prevention time” on p.5 L26-27 and reports “a value shorter than the initial value as the cold-start prevention time” on p.5 L27-29. It is unclear whether either of these instances are the same as “a value shorter than an initial value [that] will be used as the cold-start prevention time” as cited in claim 1 p.1 L19-20 or a different instance of “a value shorter than an initial value as the cold-start prevention time”. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed the instances in claim 2 will be referencing the instance in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi et al. (JP4937894B2) (machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Onishi discloses a controller (“controller” (130)) for an injection molding machine including an injecting member (“injection device” (10)) configured to inject a molding material from a cylinder (“heating cylinder” (11)) and a drive source configured to cause the injecting member to operate (“screw” (not shown), [0014]), the controller comprising:
a cold-start prevention part configured to, when a first condition is met, restrict an operation of the injecting member during a cold-start prevention time that is set in advance ([0041] with regards to step S1),
when the first condition is met, the cold-start prevention part determining whether or not a second condition, which is different from the first condition, is met to determine whether or not a value shorter than an initial value will be used as the cold-start prevention time ([0042]-[0043], with regards to steps S2 and S3).
While Onishi does not explicitly disclose that a mold part is used with the injection molding machine, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, as it is consistent with the fundamentals of an injection molding machine that the machine comprises a mold part for which to inject material into for the predictable result of molding a desired piece.
Regarding claim 2, Onishi teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the controller to be configured so that when the first condition is met and the second condition is met, the cold-start prevention part uses the value shorter than the initial value as the cold-start prevention time, or reports that the value shorter than the initial value will be used as the cold-start prevention time, given that
a) Onishi teaches that the cold-start prevention part can be ended as a result of the temperature and the heat flux reaching target values ([0037]-[0039], with heat flux representing recorded temperatures of the cylinder of sensors at different positions as an additional indicator to the temperature of the resin within the cylinder);
b) Onishi teaches how having a set initial timer for cold-start prevention for all situations may result in waste of time, power and/or possible screw damage ([0004]-[0005]),
c) the use of a shorter value of time than that of the initial value for the cold-start prevention time by measuring temperature and heat flux represents the discovery of an optimal or workable range of a value, which involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05(II)). One would have been motivated to do so to prevent waste of time, power and/or avoid screw damage ([0004]-[0005])
Regarding claim 3, Onishi teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Onishi teaches that the cold-start prevention part can be ended as a result of the temperature and the heat flux reaching target values ([0037]- [0039], with heat flux representing recorded temperatures of the cylinder at different positions as an additional indicator to the actual temperature of the resin within the cylinder) and a change in the set temperature to a temperature that is near or below the current temperature and while the heat flux is at or below its target value when heating has already occurred would cause the cold-start prevention to end ([0037]-[0039]), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for the controller to be configured so that wherein the first condition includes a state in which a set temperature of the cylinder or the mold part is changed, and the second condition includes a state in which heating of the cylinder or the mold part is completed immediately before the first condition is met.
Regarding claim 4, Onishi teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the controller to be configured so that wherein the first condition includes a state in which heating of the cylinder or the mold part has started, the second condition includes a state in which heating of the cylinder or the mold part is completed a set time prior to a point when the first condition is met, or heating of the cylinder or the mold part is completed before a set period is passed since the first condition is met, given that
a) Onishi teaches that the cold-start prevention part can be ended as a result of the temperature and the heat flux reaching target values ([0037]-[0039], with heat flux representing recorded temperatures of the cylinder at different positions as an additional indicator to the actual temperature of the resin within the cylinder), meaning that if a change in the set temperature to a temperature that is near or below the current temperature (for example, the current temperature being 300oC and the set temperature being 280oC) occurred while the heat flux is at or below its target value when heating has already been performed, such conditions would cause the cold-start prevention to end immediately ([0037]-[0039], representing an value of zero, which would be shorter than any cold-start prevention period that occurs, or put in another way, an initial value of > 0); and
b) the use of a shorter value of time than that of the initial value for the cold-start prevention time by measuring temperature and heat flux represents the discovery of an optimal or workable range of a value, which involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05(II)), which one would have been motivated to do to prevent waste of time, power and/or avoid screw damage ([0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Onishi teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Onishi teaches that the cold-start prevention part can be ended as a result of the temperature and the heat flux reaching target values ([0037]-[0039], with heat flux representing recorded temperatures of the cylinder at different positions as an additional indicator to the temperature of the resin within the cylinder) as opposed to having a set initial timer for all situations which may result in wastes of time, power and/or possible screw damage ([0004]-[0005]), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for the controller to be configured so that the cold-start prevention part determines whether or not a value shorter than the initial value will be used as the cold-start prevention time based on a set temperature and actual temperature of the cylinder or the mold part at a point when the first condition is met.
Regarding claim 6, Onishi teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Onishi teaches that the cold-start prevention part can be ended as a result of the temperature and the heat flux reaching target values ([0037]-[0039], with heat flux representing recorded temperatures of the cylinder with sensors at different positions as an additional indicator to the temperature of the resin within the cylinder and indirectly as an indicator for time lag between having one point of the cylinder reaching the designated set temperature value versus when another point reaches a similar set temperature value) as opposed to having a set initial timer for all situations which may result in wastes of time, power and/or possible screw damage ([0004]-[0005]), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for the controller to be configured so the cold-start prevention part determines whether or not a value shorter than the initial value will be used as the cold-start prevention time based on a time lag between a point when the first condition is met and completion of heating of the cylinder or the mold part.
Regarding claim 7, Onishi teaches an injection molding machine comprising the controller according to claim 1 as set forth above, the injecting member (“injection device” (10)) and the drive source (“screw” (not shown), [0014]).
Regarding claim 9, Onishi teaches all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Onishi teaches that a change in the set temperature to a temperature that is near or below the target value temperature and while the heat flux is at or below its target value when heating has already occurred would cause the cold-start prevention to end ([0037]-[0039]), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for the controller to be configured so that wherein the first condition includes a state in which a set temperature of the cylinder or the mold part is changed, and the second condition includes a state in which heating of the cylinder or the mold part is completed immediately before the first condition is met.
Regarding claim 10, Onishi teaches all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the controller to be configured so that wherein the first condition includes a state in which heating of the cylinder or the mold part has started, the second condition includes a state in which heating of the cylinder or the mold part is completed a set time prior to a point when the first condition is met, or heating of the cylinder or the mold part is completed before a set period is passed since the first condition is met, given that
a) Onishi teaches that the cold-start prevention part can be ended as a result of the temperature and the heat flux reaching target values ([0037]-[0039], with heat flux representing recorded temperatures of the cylinder at different positions as an additional indicator to the actual temperature of the resin within the cylinder), meaning that if a change in the set temperature to a temperature that is near or below the current temperature (for example, the current temperature being 300oC and the set temperature being 280oC) occurred while the heat flux is at or below its target value when heating has already been performed, such conditions would cause the cold-start prevention to end immediately ([0037]-[0039], representing an value of zero, which would be shorter than any cold-start prevention period that occurs, or put in another way, an initial value of > 0); and
b) the use of a shorter value of time than that of the initial value for the cold-start prevention time by measuring temperature and heat flux represents the discovery of an optimal or workable range of a value, which involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05(II)), which one would have been motivated to do to prevent waste of time, power and/or avoid screw damage ([0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 11, Onishi teaches all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Onishi teaches that the cold-start prevention part can be ended as a result of the temperature and the heat flux reaching target values ([0037]-[0039]) as opposed to having a set initial timer for all situations which may result in wastes of time, power and/or possible screw damage ([0004]-[0005]), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for the controller to be configured so that the cold-start prevention part determines whether or not a value shorter than the initial value will be used as the cold-start prevention time based on a set temperature and actual temperature of the cylinder or the mold part at a point when the first condition is met.
Regarding claim 12, Onishi teaches all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Onishi teaches that the heat flux indirectly represents an indicator for time lag between having one point of the cylinder reaching the designated set temperature versus when another point reaches a similar set temperature ([0037]-[0039]) as opposed to only having a set initial timer for all situations which may result in wastes of time, power and/or possible screw damage ([0004]-[0005]), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for the controller to be configured so the cold-start prevention part determines whether or not a value shorter than the initial value will be used as the cold-start prevention time based on a time lag between a point when the first condition is met and completion of heating of the cylinder or the mold part.
Regarding claim 13, Onishi teaches all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Onishi teaches that the cold-start prevention part can be ended as a result of the temperature and the heat flux reaching target values ([0037]-[0039], with heat flux representing recorded temperatures of the cylinder of sensors at different positions as an additional indicator to the temperature of the resin within the cylinder) as opposed to having a set initial timer for all situations which may result in wastes of time, power and/or possible screw damage ([0004]-[0005]), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for the controller to be configured so that when the first condition is met and the second condition is met, the cold-start prevention part uses the value shorter than the initial value as the cold-start prevention time, or reports that the value shorter than the initial value will be used as the cold-start prevention time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749