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 .
Response to Amendment
In the applicant’s reply of 12 March 2026, the claims were amended. Based on these amendments, the claim objection included in the previous office action is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's arguments filed 12 March 2026 with respect to the § 103 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
As an initial matter, and as maintained in the Claim Interpretation section below, the “sections” recited in claim 1 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and are construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification, namely, different sections of a controller implemented by a combination of a CPU, memory, and display (see Fig. 2 and [0027]-[0028], [0030]), and equivalents thereof. The applicant has neither amended claim 1 to recite structure avoiding this interpretation nor presented a showing that the recited sections include sufficient structure to perform the recited functions. Accordingly, each recited “section” is a functional limitation, and the pertinent question is whether the proposed combination yields a controller that performs the recited functions.
The applicant argues on Pgs. 6-7 that Kozuka uses single, static “standard values” and does not provide a physical property value input section for inputting a plurality of different resin temperatures and corresponding physical property values. This argument is directed to Kozuka individually, whereas the rejection is based on the combination of Kozuka, Kamiguchi, and Kuehne. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986); MPEP 2145. The rejection does not rely on Kozuka for the temperature-dependent property data. Kamiguchi teaches that resin behavior is temperature dependent and that corresponding data should be generated to account for this effect (abstract, [0004]-[0005], [0010]-[0012]), and Kuehne teaches inputting raw material property data as a plurality of data points to be fitted (Pgs. 1-2).
The applicant argues on Pg. 7 that, because Kozuka uses only single static values, there is no plurality of data within Kozuka to which Kuehne’s fitting techniques would apply. This argument is not persuasive because it presupposes an intermediate, unmodified state of Kozuka that the combination does not require. The combination first modifies Kozuka, in view of Kamiguchi, so that the resin property data includes values for a plurality of different resin temperatures. Kuehne’s fitting/interpolation is then applied to that plurality of data.
The applicant argues on Pgs. 7-8 that Kuehne describes an offline pre-processing step for external simulation software to build a static material library, which is “fundamentally different” from a molding assistance device having “an integrated physical property value conversion section that transforms raw operator inputs into a mathematical model within the machine controller”. This argument is not persuasive for two reasons. First, claim 1 does not recite that the conversion section is “within the machine controller”, that it produces a “mathematical model”, or that it functions as a “real-time bridge”. These arguments are not commensurate in scope with claim 1. See MPEP 2145. Second, under the § 112(f) interpretation set forth below, each “section” is functionality performed by a CPU, memory, and display. Whether the fitting/conversion functionality is characterized as “offline” pre-processing or as an “integrated” section is a description of a workflow, not a structural distinction recited in the claim. The combination incorporates Kuehne’s fitting/conversion functionality into the controller of Kozuka, thereby yielding a controller that performs the recited conversion function.
The applicant argues on Pg. 8 that none of the references teaches a functional module that acts as a “real-time bridge” between a conversion model and a calculation section to provide a resin temperature and the corresponding physical property value to the calculation processing functional section. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites that the data conversion processing functional section “operates, when the molten state is estimated, so as to provide to the calculation processing functional section a resin temperature at the time of the estimation and the physical property value corresponding to the resin temperature and obtained by the physical property value conversion section”. In the proposed combination, the calculation processing function unit Fc of Kozuka performs the molten-state estimation using the resin property data ([0048]-[0049], [0071]). As modified in view of Kamiguchi and Kuehne, that property data is temperature dependent and is fitted/interpolated such that a physical property value may be obtained for a given resin temperature. Accordingly, when Fc performs the estimation, the controller necessarily (i) operates with respect to a resin temperature applicable to the estimation, and (ii) retrieves, from the fitted/interpolated data, the physical property value corresponding to that resin temperature and provides that value for use in the calculation. This functionality (performed by a CPU, memory, and display in accordance with the § 112(f) interpretation set forth below) corresponds to the recited data conversion processing functional section. That modified Kozuka performs this function without delineating a separately named “section” does not avoid the limitation, because under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) the limitation is met by structure that performs the recited function and equivalents thereof.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites various “sections”, e.g., a resin data setting section, a calculation processing functional section. In the illustrated embodiment, these sections correspond to different sections of a controller and are implemented by a combination of a CPU, memory, and display. See Fig. 2 and [0027]-[0028], [0030]. In other words, the sections can be logical sections implemented by different software functions in a software program that is stored in the memory and executed by the CPU. The different sections could but do not need to comprise distinct physical structure.
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.
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: the “sections” recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. As discussed above, the sections recited in claim 1 correspond to different sections of a controller and are implemented by a combination of a CPU, memory, and display. See Fig. 2 and [0027]-[0028], [0030].
If applicant does not intend to have this/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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/188998 (“Kozuka”) (cited in an IDS) (with US 2021/0001528 as the translation) in view of US 2002/0153630 (“Kamiguchi”) (cited in an IDS) and Kuehne, S. “How to get material raw data into the Autodesk Simulation Moldflow Software?”. Beyond Moldflow Insight: The Autodesk Moldflow Support Blog. 13 March 2014. 11 October 2018. http://autodesk.typepad.com/beyondmoldflowinsight/2014/03/how-to-get-material-raw-data-into-the-autodesk-moldflow-software.html. Internet Archive. https://web.archive.org/web/20181011193733/http://autodesk.typepad.com/beyondmoldflowinsight/2014/03/how-to-get-material-raw-data-into-the-autodesk-moldflow-software.html (“Kuehne”).
Regarding claim 1, Kozuka discloses a molding assistance device for an injection molding machine ([0001]) comprising:
a resin data setting section in which resin data relating to resin are set; a molding machine data setting section in which molding machine data relating to a molding machine are set; a molding condition data setting section in which molding condition data relating to molding conditions are set (The basic data input unit Fi is used for inputting the basic data Do, which includes the molding conditions data Dm and the screw data Ds ([0048], Fig. 1). The molding conditions data Dm includes data related to the resin material to be used, including various properties of the material, e.g., melting characteristics ([0049]). The screw data Ds includes data related to the form of the screw ([0050]).);
a calculation processing functional section which estimates a molten state of plasticized resin on the basis of the resin data, the molding machine data, and the molding condition data (the calculation processing function unit Fc calculates the solid phase rate Xc and the resin decomposition rate Xr of the molten resin using the basic data Do, [0071], Fig. 1);
an output processing functional section which visually displays on a display the molten state estimated by the calculation processing functional section (the output processing function unit Fd allows the display 5 to display information related to the estimated solid phase rate Xcs and the estimated resin decomposition rate Xrs, [0076]-[0080], Fig. 1).
Kozuka does not disclose the claimed resin item selection section, physical property value input section, physical property value conversion section, or data conversion processing functional section. In other words, while Kozuka discloses that the molding conditions data Dm includes data related to various properties of the resin material to be used, e.g., melting characteristics ([0049]), Kozuka does not disclose that: 1) the resin data includes physical property values for different resin temperatures; 2) the resin data is interpolated (or otherwise converted) to provide a physical property value for any given resin temperature; and 3) the calculation processing function unit Fc calculates the solid phase rate Xc and the resin decomposition rate Xr of the molten resin using the physical property value for the relevant resin temperature(s).
Kamiguchi teaches that the behavior of resin during injection molding depends on the temperature of the resin and that corresponding data should be generated to be able to quantify and account for this effect (abstract, [0004]-[0005], [0010]-[0012], Figs. 1, 3). Kuehne teaches that material raw data can be fitted and then imported into the Autodesk Simulation Moldflow software (Pgs. 1-2). The material data can include specific heat and thermal conductivity data, viscosity data, and melt flow rate data, for example (Pg. 2). The references to “plotting”, “tabular” data, and “fitting” indicate that there are multiple values associated with each of the different data types, i.e., there are multiple viscosity values, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that, when inputting the molding conditions data Dm in Kozuka, the resin material data should include material property values for different resin temperatures since Kamiguchi teaches that resin temperature affects resin behavior and should be accounted for. Additionally, the material properties should be fit/interpolated to provide data for additional temperatures, as taught by Kuehne. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the fitting/interpolation eliminates the need to generate and provide data for all expected resin temperatures.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the material property values corresponding to expected resin temperature(s) during molding when the calculation processing function unit Fc of Kozuka calculates the solid phase rate Xc and the resin decomposition rate Xr of the molten resin since these calculations use the basic data Do ([0071]), and the basic data Do includes the molding conditions data Dm and its resin data ([0048]-[0049]). There is no reason to use material property values for other resin temperatures when property values are available for the expected temperature(s). Also, as noted above, Kamiguchi teaches that resin temperature affects resin behavior and should be accounted for.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kozuka discloses that the data conversion processing functional section has a function of displaying on the display a detail data input screen having the resin item selection section and the physical property value input section ([0044], [0048] of Kozuka disclose that the display 5 can include a touch panel 5t for input, setting, or selection operations and that the touch panel 5t can be used by the basic data input unit Fi to input the basic data Do. Kuehne discloses that the data fitting software is a web-enabled application that allows for inputting material data.).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kozuka discloses that the physical property value conversion section has a function of performing conversion by using a function expression obtained from physical property values corresponding to the plurality of different resin temperatures or a corrected function expression obtained by correcting the function expression (this is an inherent part of the fitting of Kuehne).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kozuka discloses that the physical property value conversion section has a function of performing conversion by using a data table obtained from physical property values corresponding to the plurality of different resin temperatures or a corrected data table obtained by correcting the data table (Kuehne discloses the use of data tables as part of the fitting, Pgs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kozuka discloses that, when the data conversion processing functional section is not used, the calculation processing functional section uses a standard value set beforehand as the physical property value (Unmodified Kozuka functions in this manner. In particular, Kozuka does not disclose inputting or using physical property values for different resin temperatures, so the resin data input in Kozuka ([0049]) would correspond to the claimed standard value. Additionally, Pg. 2 of Kuehne discloses that generic data can be automatically substituted: “Input of raw pvT data to be fitted to the 2-Domain Tait model, or automatic substitution of generic pvT data”, “Input of raw Mechanical Properties or automatic substitution of generic mechanical data”.).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, modified Kozuka discloses that the calculation processing functional section has a function of estimating, as the molten state of plasticized resin, a solid phase rate of molten resin in a heating cylinder on the basis of the resin data, the molding machine data, and the molding condition data ([0071] of Kozuka).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, modified Kozuka discloses that the calculation processing functional section has a function of estimating, as the molten state of plasticized resin, a resin decomposition rate of a screw surface during molding on the basis of the resin data, the molding machine data, and the molding condition data ([0071] of Kozuka).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kozuka discloses that the calculation processing functional section is configured to use a standard value for the physical property when the data conversion processing functional section is not used, and to use the converted physical property value obtained by the physical property value conversion section when the data conversion processing functional section is activated.
As discussed above with respect to claim 5, unmodified Kozuka uses a single, standard physical property value in the calculation processing performed by the calculation processing function unit Fc (see [0049]; see also the melting specific heat capacity Cm used in the calculation processing at [0103]), which corresponds to using a standard value for the physical property when the data conversion processing functional section is not used. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, when the data conversion processing functionality of modified Kozuka is used, the physical property value used by the calculation processing function unit Fc is the converted value obtained by the physical property value conversion functionality, i.e., the value fitted/interpolated from the temperature-dependent property data (see Kuehne, Pgs. 1-2). Kuehne further discloses that, for a given property, the system is configured either to accept input of raw property data to be fitted or to automatically substitute generic property data (Pg. 2). In other words, Kuehne describes a single system that is selectively configured to use either a converted property value or a standard (generic) property value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the calculation processing functional section of modified Kozuka to use the standard value when the data conversion processing functionality is not used and to use the converted value when the data conversion processing functionality is used, as taught by Kuehne, in order to obtain accurate, temperature-appropriate physical property values when temperature-dependent data is available while retaining a usable default physical property value when such data is not provided.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kozuka discloses that the data conversion processing functional section interconnects the physical property value conversion section and the calculation processing functional section, and is configured to dynamically supply the physical property value extracted from the physical property value conversion section to the calculation processing functional section in response to a current resin temperature acquired at the time of the estimation.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, the data conversion processing functionality of modified Kozuka operates, when the molten state is estimated, so as to provide to the calculation processing function unit Fc a resin temperature at the time of the estimation and the physical property value corresponding to that resin temperature and obtained by the physical property value conversion functionality. This data conversion processing functionality is positioned between, and thereby interconnects, the physical property value conversion functionality (which obtains the physical property value for the resin temperature, e.g., by the fitting/interpolation of Kuehne) and the calculation processing function unit Fc (which uses the physical property value in estimating the molten state). Because the physical property value is provided when the molten state is estimated and corresponds to the resin temperature at the time of the estimation, modified Kozuka supplies the physical property value to the calculation processing function unit Fc in response to a current resin temperature acquired at the time of the estimation. See also the Response to Arguments section above regarding the data conversion processing functional section.
Conclusion
For purposes of compact prosecution, applicant’s attention is directed to US 2020/0055224 (“Kozuka 2”), which was cited in the Conclusion section of the previous office action. Kozuka 2 is directed to a device for assisting molding condition setting for an injection molding machine and shares an inventor and assignee with Kozuka. Kozuka 2 discloses a controller having a database in which a physical property value (oxidation induction time Tg) is associated with a plurality of different resin temperatures (heating temperatures TH), where the database includes a data table and/or a computation formula ([0054]). Kozuka 2 further discloses a derivation function unit (oxidation induction time derivation function unit Fg) that determines, based on input conditions including a resin and a heating temperature, the corresponding physical property value from the data table or by function computation ([0055]-[0056]), and an input setting screen on which the resin and the temperature are input ([0057], Fig. 9).
Should the claims be amended in a manner that distinguishes over the present combination, a rejection over Kozuka in view of Kamiguchi and Kozuka 2 (and, as appropriate, Kuehne) may be warranted. In such a combination, Kozuka would provide the molding assistance device that estimates the molten state of plasticized resin; Kamiguchi would provide the teaching that resin behavior is temperature dependent and should be accounted for; and Kozuka 2 would provide the database of physical property values associated with a plurality of different resin temperatures, together with the data table and/or computation formula and the derivation function unit that obtains a physical property value for a given resin temperature and provides it for use in subsequent processing.
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 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 Zhao, 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
Prosecution Insights