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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 04/16/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Unity of Invention standard is not applicable to this application. This is found persuasive and therefore the restriction requirement has been withdrawn. Claim 6 has been rejoined and is examined below along with claims 1-5.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Therefore, claim 6, which uses the word “step” with functional language, creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an acquisition unit that acquires waveform data” in claim 1
“an analysis unit that extracts, based on a relationship of variables included in the acquired waveform data, a first variable” in claim 1
“an output unit that outputs information used in controlling the control target equipment” in claim 1
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kadoya WO-2023085383-A1 (“Kadoya”).
Kadoya discloses:
1. An information processing system comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires waveform data obtained through an operation of control target equipment (e.g., [0009]: “waveform for each shot”, [0043], [0065]);
an analysis unit that extracts, based on a relationship of variables included in the acquired waveform data, a first variable that is at least a portion of the variables and a second variable that is at least another portion of the variables, that derives variables corresponding to the second variables based on the first variable, and that defines characteristics of the control target equipment based on the derived variables and the second variable (e.g., [0009], [0043], [0065]); and
an output unit that outputs information used in controlling the control target equipment based on the characteristics of the control target equipment (e.g., [0009]: “the display device displays the setting conditions and their values to be reset on the screen in order along the time series of molding of the cut-out sections”).
2. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the analysis unit inputs a plurality of the first variables, uses a linear multiple regression model for obtaining one output through a plurality of processes in an intermediate layer, and derives the variable corresponding to the second variable as the output (e.g., [0050]).
3. The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the analysis unit corrects weight values set for the plurality of processes in the intermediate layer such that an error between the derived variable and the second variable is small and uses the corrected weight values as information representing the characteristics of the control target equipment (e.g., [0056]: “Next, the learning model generated in S802 is updated by adding information on the difference between the most recent mold pressure waveform and the reference waveform as learning data (step S805)”).
4. The information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the information, which is output from the output unit, is information on a gain in controlling the control target equipment, which is generated based on the corrected weight value (e.g., [0056]: “and based on the updated learning model, the parameters of the setting conditions (1) to (4) above are calculated by how much they should be changed (step S806)”).
5. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to function as:
a unit of acquiring waveform data obtained through an operation of control target equipment (e.g., [0009]: “waveform for each shot”, [0043], [0065]);
a unit of extracting, based on a relationship of variables included in the acquired waveform data, a first variable that is at least a portion of the variables and a second variable that is at least another portion of the variables, of deriving variables corresponding to the second variables based on the first variable, and of defining characteristics of the control target equipment based on the derived variables and the second variable (e.g., [0009], [0043], [0065]); and
a unit of outputting information used in controlling the control target equipment based on the characteristics of the control target equipment (e.g., [0009]: “the display device displays the setting conditions and their values to be reset on the screen in order along the time series of molding of the cut-out sections”).
6. A manufacturing method of an injection molding machine comprising:
a step of acquiring waveform data by operating the injection molding machine (e.g., [0009]: “waveform for each shot”, [0043], [0065]);
a step of extracting, based on a relationship of variables included in the acquired waveform data, a first variable that is at least a portion of the variables and a second variable that is at least another portion of the variables, of deriving variables corresponding to the second variables based on the first variable, and of defining characteristics of the injection molding machine based on the derived variables and the second variable (e.g., [0009], [0043], [0065]); and
a step of adjusting control information of the injection molding machine based on the characteristics of the injection molding machine (e.g., [0009]: “the display device displays the setting conditions and their values to be reset on the screen in order along the time series of molding of the cut-out sections”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-3742. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, 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.
/RYAN A JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
06/18/26
Prosecution Insights