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 .
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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “The A molding assistance device” should be replaced with “The molding assistance device”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, see the abstract of US 2020/0055224 (“Kozuka 2”) and the abstract of DE 10 2009 000 938 (“Becker”).
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