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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 11, 17-18, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honke et al. (JP2009196302A -hereinafter Honke -Note: As the machine translation attached) in view of Fehr et al. (US20050280910A1 -hereinafter Fehr).
Regarding Claim 1, Honke teaches a molding machine system comprising:
a molding machine including:
a cylinder; (see page 6, paragraph 4; Honke: “The biaxial kneading extruder 1 includes a kneading part 2 in which a pair of kneading screws 12a and 12b is rotatably inserted”)
a first screw and a second screw embedded in the cylinder; and (see page 3, third paragraph; Honke: “The biaxial kneading extruder 1 includes a kneading part 2 in which a pair of kneading screws 12a and 12b is rotatably inserted”)
a motor rotationally driving the first screw and the second screw; (see page 3, third paragraph; Honke: “a drive motor 3 that generates a rotational driving force for the pair of kneading screws 12a and 12b”)
a feature-amount identification apparatus identifying a feature amount related to an operation state of the molding machine; (see page 6, first paragraph; Honke: “The load torque generated on the output shaft of the motor is detected”. See Abstract: “A twin-screw kneading extruder 1 is provided with torque detection means 5 for detecting a load torque of an output shaft 3a between a drive motor 3 and a speed reduction part 4.”) [The load torque of the motor reads on ‘a feature amount’]
a torque detection device attached to a rotational shaft of the first screw and detecting a torque of the first screw; (see page 3, paragraph 4; Honke: “The torque meter 30 may be provided on the output shaft 3a or the coupling device 22.”)
a torque derivation apparatus deriving a torque of the second screw from the feature amount identified by the feature-amount identification apparatus and the torque of the first screw detected by the torque detection device. (see page 2, last paragraph; Honke: “the load torque calculation method in the twin-screw kneading extruder according to the present invention includes a kneading portion in which a pair of kneading screws are rotatably inserted, a drive motor that rotationally drives the kneading screws, a kneading portion, and a driving motor… The load torque generated on the output shaft of the motor is detected, and the phase difference of rotation generated between the pair of kneading screws between the kneading unit and the reduction unit is detected, and the detected load torque and phase difference of rotation are detected. From the above, the load torque generated in each of the pair of kneading screws is calculated.”) [That is, the load torque of each of the pair of kneading screws is calculated based on the detected load torque of the motor.]
However, Honke does not explicitly teach: a torque derivation apparatus deriving a torque of the second screw from …the torque of the first screw detected by the torque detection device.
Fehr from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a torque derivation apparatus deriving a torque of the second screw from …the torque of the first screw detected by the torque detection device. (see [0045]; Fehr: “In a second exemplary embodiment, an attempt was made to use an appropriate correction of the tightening torques of the screws 5 b, 5 c in order to balance out the instances of image interference of the optical system 1 caused by an increase in the tightening torque of the screw 5 a of the mirror 2 d on the carrier element 4.”) [That is, the tightening torques of the screws 5 b, 5 c is calculated based on the the tightening torque of the screw 5 a.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Honke to include Fehr’s features of a torque derivation apparatus deriving a torque of the second screw from the torque of the first screw detected by the torque detection device. Doing so would avoid instabilities and inaccuracies. (Fehr, [0033] and [0069])
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Honke and Fehr teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Honke further teaches a notification portion outputting an alert if the torque of the first screw or the torque of the second screw satisfies a determined condition. (see page 3, first paragraph; Honke: “According to this load torque calculation method, the load torque generated in each kneading screw can be reliably calculated from the load torque generated in the output shaft of the drive motor and the phase difference of rotation generated between the pair of kneading screws. it can. In addition, when the detected load reaches a predetermined abnormal value, it is preferable to notify an abnormality alarm or stop the rotation of the kneading screw.”)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Honke and Fehr teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Honke further teaches wherein the feature-amount identification apparatus is a torque meter connected to the motor (see page 7, first paragraph; Honke: “The torque detection means 5 is disposed between the connection of the drive motor 3 and the speed reduction unit 4 and at an appropriate position of the input shaft 20 of the speed reduction unit 4.”), and detects a torque of the motor as the feature amount. (see page 7, first paragraph; Honke: “The torque detection means 5 of this embodiment is a torque meter 30 provided for the input shaft 20, and the drive side torque value detected by the torque meter 30 is input to the load calculation means 7.”)
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Honke and Fehr as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Honke and Fehr as discussed connection with claim 9.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Honke and Fehr as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 24, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Honke and Fehr as discussed connection with claim 9.
Regarding Claim 25, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Honke and Fehr as discussed connection with claim 1.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honke in view of Fehr in view of Ueda (US20180215038A1 -hereinafter Ueda).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Honke and Fehr teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the torque derivation apparatus derives the torque of the second screw while using a torque derivation function outputting the torque of the second screw in response to input of the feature amount and the torque of the first screw.
Ueda from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the torque derivation apparatus derives the torque of the second screw while using a torque derivation function outputting the torque of the second screw in response to input of the feature amount and the torque of the first screw. (see [0132]-[0133]; Ueda: “The text box 57 has a function of displaying recommended screw-tightening torque. The recommended screw-tightening torque refers to screw-tightening torque to be recommended. The screw-tightening torque is called tightening torque as well and refers to a force (torque) for turning the screw 9 in a rotating direction when turning and tightening (fastening) the screw 9. The recommended screw-tightening torque is explained below in detail. The text box 58 has a function of inputting set screw-tightening torque. The set screw-tightening torque refers to screw-tightening torque to be set.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Honke and Fehr to include Ueda’s features of the torque derivation apparatus derives the torque of the second screw while using a torque derivation function outputting the torque of the second screw in response to input of the feature amount and the torque of the first screw. Doing so would more accurately perform the setting of the screw-tightening torque in the screw-tightening process. (Ueda, [0009])
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Honke and Fehr teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach a display portion displaying the torque of the first screw or a numerical value based on the torque of the first screw and the torque of the second screw or a numerical value based on the torque of the second screw.
Ueda from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a display portion displaying the torque of the first screw or a numerical value based on the torque of the first screw and the torque of the second screw or a numerical value based on the torque of the second screw. (see [0075]; Ueda: “The control device 1 includes a receiving section 15 that receives an input of at least one of characteristics of an object including the screw 9 used in the screw-tightening process (besides the screw 9, for example, work 81 and a female screw 820), a display control section 13 that calculate, on the basis of the characteristics received by the receiving section 15, recommended screw-tightening torque, which is an example of a value concerning screw-tightening torque at a time of the tightening of the screw 9 by the robot 2 and causes the display device 41 (the display section) to display the recommended screw-tightening torque (the value concerning the screw-tightening torque), and the robot control section 11 and a screwdriver control section 12, which are examples of a control section that controls at least the driving of the robot 2.”)
The same motivation to combine Honke, Fehr, and Ueda a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Honke, Fehr, and Ueda as discussed connection with claim 2.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Honke, Fehr, and Ueda as discussed connection with claim 2.
Claim(s) 3-4, 13-14, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honke in view of Fehr in view of Ueda in view of Yamamoto et al. (US20170050362A1 -hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Honke, Fehr, and Ueda teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the torque derivation apparatus determines the torque derivation function in accordance with an operation condition of the molding machine.
Yamamoto from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the torque derivation apparatus determines the torque derivation function in accordance with an operation condition of the molding machine. (see [0094]; Yamamoto: “The function of protecting the mold 20 is, e.g., a function of monitoring the torque of the driving device 14 of the mold clamping device 2 so as to stop the driving device 14 when a predetermined monitoring torque is exceeded.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Honke, Fehr, and Ueda to include Yamamoto’s features of determining the torque derivation function in accordance with an operation condition of the molding machine. Doing so would improve the molding defect. (Yamamoto, [0015]
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Honke, Fehr, Ueda, and Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above, Yamamoto further teaches wherein the torque derivation apparatus stores a table obtained based on correspondence for each of the operation condition between the operation condition and a function to be used when the molding machine is operated under the operation condition (see [0057]; Yamamoto: “The data of molding conditions is generated using the various information inputted from the input sections 47A and 48A by the operator, as well as specification data of the injection molding machine 1, data tables of various molding materials and calculation formulae pre-stored in the memory section 41.”), and determines a function corresponding to the set operation condition with reference to the table (see [0012]; Yamamoto: “In addition, the control device may include a protecting condition setting section (85) that, after the molding condition is set, displays in the display device a screen that requests the operator to input information about a function of protecting the mold and a guidance that shows a procedure for the manipulation, so as to generate and set a condition for protecting the mold based on the information for protecting the mold.”), and determines the determined function as the torque derivation function. (see [0094]; Yamamoto: “The function of protecting the mold 20 is, e.g., a function of monitoring the torque of the driving device 14 of the mold clamping device 2 so as to stop the driving device 14 when a predetermined monitoring torque is exceeded.”)
The same motivation to combine Honke, Fehr, Ueda, and Yamamoto a set forth for Claim 3 equally applies to Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Honke, Fehr, Ueda, and Yamamoto as discussed connection with claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Honke, Fehr, Ueda, and Yamamoto as discussed connection with claim 4.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Honke, Fehr, Ueda, and Yamamoto as discussed connection with claim 3.
Regarding Claim 21, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Honke, Fehr, Ueda, and Yamamoto as discussed connection with claim 4.
Claim(s) 5, 15, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honke in view of Fehr in view of Ueda in view of Yamamoto in view of Cohen et al. (US20160009029A1 -hereinafter Cohen) in view of Fujita et al. (US20070191169A1 -hereinafter Fujita).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Honke, Fehr, Ueda, and Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above, Yamamoto further teaches wherein the table is obtained based on correspondence between combination of a plurality of items and a function corresponding to the combination for each of the combination, the items being a source material to be introduced (see [0057]; Yamamoto: “The data of molding conditions is generated using the various information inputted from the input sections 47A and 48A by the operator, as well as specification data of the injection molding machine 1, data tables of various molding materials and calculation formulae pre-stored in the memory section 41.”),… a length of the cylinder (see [0075]: “The V-P change position is a position of the plunger 61 that has retreated a predetermined distance from a front wall 62 b in the injection cylinder 60 shown in FIG. 3”), a temperature of the cylinder (see [0096]; Yamamoto: “After each of the cylinders 50, 60, 62 and the nozzle 63 is heated to a predetermined temperature by the heater 69, when the operator touches the indication “>” on the display screen shown in FIG. 15, a screen shown in FIG. 16A is displayed requesting the operator to carry out a color change by a screw purge.”), rotational speeds of the first screw and the second screw (see [0044]; Yamamoto: “rotation of the screw 51”),
The same motivation to combine Honke, Fehr, Ueda, and Yamamoto a set forth for Claim 3 equally applies to Claim 4.
However, it does not explicitly teach: the items being … a blending ratio of a material configuring the source material, a diameter of the cylinder, … a processing amount per unit time, a speed change ratio of a transmission interposed between the motor and the first and second screws, and configurations of the first screw and the second screw.
Cohen from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the items being … a blending ratio of a material configuring the source material (see [0016]; Cohen: “The printhead can blend multiple compatible materials having different properties (e.g., modulus of elasticity), producing composites with properties determined by the source materials and their mixing ratio(s).”), a diameter of the cylinder (see [0076]; Cohen: “diameter cylinder ”), … a processing amount per unit time (see [0017]; Cohen: “In this mode, material can be thoroughly blended if needed during one portion of a cycle, and extruded during another portion; a cycle can be completed in a short time (e.g., milliseconds or tens of milliseconds).”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Honke, Fehr, Ueda, and Yamamoto to include Cohen’s features of the torque derivation apparatus derives the torque of the second screw while using a model prepared by machine learning. Doing so would include cost reduction due to relaxed tolerances, reduced assembly labor, and reduced inventory costs. (Cohen, [0130])
However, it does not explicitly teach: …a speed change ratio of a transmission interposed between the motor and the first and second screws, and configurations of the first screw and the second screw.
Fujita from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a speed change ratio of a transmission interposed between the motor and the first and second screws (see [0034]; Fujita: “When the speed change ratio is to be changed greatly, correspondingly to the requirement from the twin screw type extruder 10, the main motor 1A and auxiliary motor 8 are put in their stopped state as needed, the switching lever 27 is operated so that the combination of connected gears between the main input shaft 25 and the intermediate gear shaft 24 is changed.”), and configurations of the first screw and the second screw (see [0025]; Fujita: “The subsidiary driving shaft 32 is arranged in parallel to the main driving shaft 31, separated by the same distance as are the two screws of the twin screw type extruder and rotatably supported by the distributor casing 3A”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Honke, Fehr, Ueda, Yamamoto, and Cohen to include Fujita’s features of a speed change ratio of a transmission interposed between the motor and the first and second screws, and configurations of the first screw and the second screw. Doing so would achieve an improvement in realizing the operation over a wide range of screw rotary speeds by a switching lever at the primary motor, allowing a high speed and a low speed running. (Fujita, [0003])
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Honke, Fehr, Ueda, Yamamoto, Cohen, and Fujita as discussed connection with claim 5.
Regarding Claim 22, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Honke, Fehr, Ueda, Yamamoto, Cohen, and Fujita as discussed connection with claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 16, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honke in view of Fehr in view of Casteran et al. (NPL: “Application of Machine Learning Tools for the Improvement of Reactive Extrusion Simulation” (2020) -hereinafter Casteran).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Honke and Fehr teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the torque derivation apparatus derives the torque of the second screw while using a model prepared by machine learning.
Casteran from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the torque derivation apparatus derives the torque of the second screw while using a model prepared by machine learning. (see Abstract; Casteran: “The twin-screw extrusion simulation software LUDOVIC is used and machine learning techniques dealing with low data limit are used as a correction of the simulation.” See page 10, left column, second paragraph: “Both data sets have the same four outputs to be predicted namely, torque, pressure, engine power, and exit temperature.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Honke and Fehr to include Casteran’s features of the torque derivation apparatus derives the torque of the second screw while using a model prepared by machine learning. Doing so would obtain accurate predictions of a complex system and improve the simulation by bringing a correction to its outputs. (Casteran, page 2, left column, third paragraph and page 12, right column, last paragraph)
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Honke, Fehr, and Casteran as discussed connection with claim 6.
Regarding Claim 23, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Honke, Fehr, and Casteran as discussed connection with claim 6.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honke in view of Fehr in view of Akasaka (US 20120104642 A1 -hereinafter Akasaka).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Honke and Fehr teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the feature-amount identification apparatus estimates a torque of the motor as the feature amount, based on a measurement value representing the operation state of the molding machine or an electric current supplied to the motor.
Akasaka from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the feature-amount identification apparatus estimates a torque of the motor as the feature amount, based on a measurement value representing the operation state of the molding machine or an electric current supplied to the motor. (see [0038]; Akasaka, [0038]: “In injection and pressure application process the pressure is applied to the plunger and the servomotor drive system holds the position of the plunger. Then the disturbance observer estimates a load torque of the servomotor by using a motor speed signal and a motor torque command signal… The method by which pressure in the cavity is obtained directly by using detected servomotor current or motor torque command, is also shown in the literature.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Honke and Fehr to include Akasaka’s features of the feature-amount identification apparatus estimates a torque of the motor as the feature amount, based on a measurement value representing the operation state of the molding machine or an electric current supplied to the motor. Doing so would have high precision, quick response and higher power. (Asakasa, [0002])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Horiuchi (US20200101650A1) discloses acquiring data related to an injection molding machine, performs numeric conversion for extracting a feature in a temporal direction or an amplitude direction, with respect to time-series data of physical quantity in the acquired data, and performs machine learning using the data obtained through numeric conversion so as to generate a learning model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights