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 .
This Office action is responsive to the communication received on 08/03/2024. The claims 1-16 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 13, 15, & 16 is/are in independent form.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f) for JP 2023-181230 filed on 10/20/2023. See filing receipt dated 08/29/2024.
However, none of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received. PTO’s attempt to retrieve the certified copies was unsuccessful. See communication dated 03/20/2025.
Claim Terms Definition
“reference information”: See Spec, ¶49: “information processing device 400 generates a display screen including the waveform diagram…In the following description, information obtained by inference added to the waveform diagram will be referred to as "reference information".”; para. 069: “reference information is information that is additionally displayed on the waveform display section 560. The reference information is displayed together with the waveform diagram based on the actual value in the waveform display section 560.”
Actual value: para. 072: “is an actual value acquired, based on the operation of the injection molding machine 10 in the shot.”
Setting value: para. 073: “is a setting value such as molding conditions set by the control device 100”
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.
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:
in claims 1- 14:
“an acquisition unit”: see fig. 3, shown as item 210, in paras. 035, 10123,
“a display control unit”: shown as item 240 in fig. 3 and paras. [037-040, 2047-3048]
In claims 13- 14 & 16:
“an inference execution unit” : Fig. 4, shown as item 440, para. 4043, 047;
In claim 14:
“a determination unit”: see para. 0117: “the processing unit 440 functions as a determination unit”
In claims 15 – 16:
“an acquisition unit”: see para. 035, 0123
“a display control unit”: see para. 048
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.
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 § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1- 3, 5- 8, 10-13, & 15- 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1)/(2) as being anticipated by Lu (US 20190176383 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lu teaches an information processing system [“Methods, systems, and apparatus” of Lu like “an exemplary system 10 that may be utilized to perform predictive simulations of an injection molding process”] comprising:([018-019]);
an acquisition unit that acquires [computing devices 14s receiving predicted data based on the data from the “various sensors located at different locations within the injection unit 16”] an inference result [“computing devices 14.sub.1 and 14.sub.2 may be used to run simulations of injection molding processes, predict, acquire and process data” e.g., “pressure predicted as an air shot pressure for the machine may be used”, “the predicted plastics pressure curve can be saved in a digital format”] of information relating to injection molding [“injection mold 20”] inferred based on (i) information [sensor data/historical data] relating to a shot in the injection molding and (ii) information obtained in the shot [“surface mesh of the screw tip may the stroke position or shot volume in the molding process”] ([019-024, 027-030, 034-035], Claim 7); and
a display control unit that causes a display unit [“FIG. 3 and method 100, at step 106, the data acquisition system (e.g., computing device 14.sub.1) may display and store the data resulting from the simulation method 200”. The display of the computing device 14 is a display unit] to display [screen (“panel”) for Fig. 7A-7B] a display screen which includes a waveform diagram [curves (e.g., “injection pressure curve”) shown in display of the computing device 14s] indicating a temporal change [the plots of figs. 7s-9 show temporal change in experiment/actual values over time] in an actual value [“the curve 500 actually measured by cavity pressure sensor “] obtained in the shot, by using a waveform [“, and on which reference information [“the curve 400 resulting from the simulation method 200” is added on the screen for the curve 500 as shown in figs. 7A- 7B] based on the inference result is added to the waveform diagram (Fig. 7A, [026-027, 5034-035], Claim 11).
Regarding claim 2, Lu teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the reference information is a value inferred with regard to a target item [e.g., “injection pressure curve” is an important variables for the molder to check/monitor and hence can be called a target item under BRI] which is a target of the waveform diagram, and a figure [“simulation plots” of figs. 7s-9] indicating the reference information is displayed on the display screen together with the waveform diagram ([026], Figs. 7A- 11).
Regarding claim 3, Lu teaches the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the display control unit performs a display indicating a difference [“the pressure magnitude and melt front arrival time is much closer,” shows the difference between the actual value and simulated value in time scale plot] between an actual value of the target item at a specific time point in the shot and the inferred value of the target item at the specific time point ([026], Figs. 7-11).
Regarding claim 5, Lu teaches the information processing system according to claims 2, wherein the display control unit performs a display indicating a difference between a setting value of the target item in the shot and the inferred value of the target item at a specific time point (Figs. 7A- 9 show the differences between predicted and actual/experimental values a time axis).
Regarding claim 6, Lu teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the reference information is a display indicating a time point [“the plot on the X-axis (time)” ] at which a specific event occurs during an operation of the shot (Fig. 7A- 9, [034]).
Regarding claim 7, Lu teaches the information processing system according to claim 6, wherein the display control unit displays a relationship between the time point at which the specific event occurs and a specific time point different from the time point at which the specific event occurs in the shot (Figs. 7A- 7B show plots that indicate different events across different time hence the values of the plots are different).
Regarding claim 8, Lu teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the reference information [“predicted” value across different time] is time-series data, and is displayed as a waveform diagram together with the waveform diagram of the actual value (Figs. 7A- 9).
Regarding claim 10, Lu teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising: a storage unit [“system 10 may also include one or more data stores (not shown) that may store such data as machine parameters, historical outputs, and the like”, “the predicted plastics pressure curve can be saved in a digital format”], wherein the storage unit holds a data file of the information relating to the shot in the injection molding and the information relating to the injection molding obtained by inference ([019, 035], Fig. 1 & associated texts).
Regarding claim 11, Lu teaches the information processing system according to claim 10, wherein the data file is held in association with a manufacturing target molding product or a mold in the shot ([019], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Lu teaches the information processing system according to claim 11, wherein the storage unit further holds an inference model [e.g., “combined mesh models of the injection unit and the structure”] used for inference of the acquisition unit ([019, 023], claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Thus, only in summary, Lu teaches an information processing system comprising: ([013, 037]);
an acquisition unit that acquires information [information obtained from sensors that “may be in communication with one or more of the computing devices 14.sub.1 and 14.sub.2”] relating to a shot in injection molding (Fig. 1, [021, 025]);
an inference execution unit that executes inference [“obtain forecasted process condition”, “injection pressure, as an output of the molding machine to move the screw is predicted”] of information relating to the injection molding inferred based on information obtained in the shot (Fig. 1, [022-025]); and
a display control unit that causes a display unit to display a display screen which includes a waveform diagram indicating a temporal change in an actual value [“data actually collected from the injection molding machine via sensors”] obtained in the shot, by using a waveform, and on which reference information [“injection pressure and cavity pressure prediction in both magnitude and waveform” as shown in figs. 7s] based on a result of the inference executed by the inference execution unit is added to the waveform diagram (Figs. 7A- 9, [036]).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Thus, only in summary, Lu teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, the program when executed by a computer, causing the computer to: ([037]);
function as an acquisition unit that acquires an inference result [predicted values] of information relating to injection molding inferred based on information relating to a shot in the injection molding and information obtained in the shot (Fig. 1-2, [024-030, 036-037]); and
function as a display control unit that causes a display unit [“machine panel or external process monitoring devices”] to display a display screen which includes a waveform diagram indicating a temporal change in an actual value [“the data actually collected from the injection molding machine via sensors”] obtained in the shot, by using a waveform, and on which reference information based on the inference result is added to the waveform diagram (Figs. 7A- 9, [035-036]).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Thus, only in summary, Lu teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, the program when executed by a computer, causing the computer to: ([037]);
function as an acquisition unit that acquires information [data from sensors] relating to a shot in injection molding (Fig. 1, [021]);
function as an inference execution unit that executes inference of information relating to the injection molding inferred [“predicted”] based on information obtained in the shot (Fig. 1, [023, 027]); and
function as a display control unit that causes a display unit [“panel”] to display a display screen which includes a waveform diagram indicating a temporal change in an actual value [“the data actually collected”] obtained in the shot, by using a waveform, and on which reference information based on a result of the inference is added to the waveform diagram (Figs. 7A- 9, [034- 036]).
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.
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) 4 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 20190176383 A1) in view of Arita (US 20220371246 A1, publication date: 2022-11-24).
Regarding claim 4, Lu teaches the information processing system comprising a display control unit displaying various values as set forth above.
However, Lu may or may not teach such displayed values also to include a setting value of the target item in the shot as claimed.
Arita relates to collecting, analyzing, and displaying various data relating to an “injection molding machine 1” in a display device of a computing device 700/2 ([004, 041, 0137]). Specifically, Arita teaches wherein the display control unit displays a setting value [“display device 760 displays the setting elements related to the injection molding machine 1”] of the target item in the shot ([0139]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Arita and Lu because they both related to tracking information related to a shot in an injection molding device/mold 20 and (2) modified the display unit of Lu to also display a setting value of the target item in the shot as in Arita. Doing so would allow user to properly diagnosis the health of the injection molding device and malfunction state due to improper operation thereof (Arita [031]).
Regarding claim 9, Lu teaches the information processing system comprising a display control unit displaying various values as set forth above.
However, Lu fails to teach the information processing system comprising
a reception unit that receives a user's operation of an input unit, wherein the reception unit transmits an instruction corresponding to the received operation to the display control unit or the acquisition unit as claimed.
Arita relates to collecting, analyzing, and displaying various data relating to an “injection molding machine 1” in a display device of a computing device 700/2 ([004, 041, 0137]). Specifically, Arita teaches an information processing system comprising
a reception unit that receives a user's operation [“user can configure the settings”, “inputting the setting values through the operating screen”] of an input unit, wherein the reception unit transmits an instruction corresponding to the received operation to the display control unit or the acquisition unit ([0138-0140]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Arita and Lu because they both related to tracking information related to a shot in an injection molding device and (2) modified Lu’s processing system including a reception unit that receives a user's operation of an input unit and transmitting an instruction corresponding to the received operation to the display control unit or the acquisition unit as in Arita. Doing so would allow preparing of different types of the screens to carefully review the various data about the injection molding in the display unit (Arita, [0138]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Herrema (US 20220138293 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lu teaches the information processing system according to claim 13, further comprising:
a determination unit uses tunit executes the inference
However, Lu fails to teach claim elements shown with strikethrough emphasis. That is, Lu fails to teach checking whether or not a condition for executing inference set for each inference model used for the inference is satisfied before inference execution unit generating predicted results.
Herrema relates to using one or more models to generated predicted results. Specifically, Herrema teaches The information processing system comprising determination unit that determines [“processor may thus determine whether a sufficient number of normalized inputs have been received, in operation 414”] whether or not a condition for executing inference set for each inference model [“the learning model”, analogous to models/logic of Lu used to generate predicted results] used for the inference is satisfied, based on the acquired information
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Herrema and Lu because they both related to a processor performing predictions based on multiple input data and (2) modified the Lu’s system/method to include missing limitations as in Herrema. Doing so would avoid Lu’s system/method to generate and display premature predicted waveforms/outputs to compare with the actually collected data (Herrema, [067] & Lu [036]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Oomori (US 20080305202 A1) teaches an injection molding machine that detects, displays, and predicts a wear amount or a closing stroke of a check valve, wherein remaining number of shots until the allowable value for the wear amount is reached, the degree of wear corresponding to the allowable value, and the like, may be displayed as a number or plotted, shown as a bar graph or a pie chart, or the like at each shot for a past, predetermined number of shots ([002, 0100]).
2) Konishi et al. (US 20030082255 A1) teaches an injection molding machine having a display apparatus ([002]).
3) Sadlier (US 20210110305 A1) teaches An information processing system comprising a display control unit that causes a display unit to display a display screen which includes a waveform diagram [“graph showing predicted and actual device usage in real time”] indicating a temporal change in an actual value obtained
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 • “the processing unit 440 of the information processing device 400 functions as an acquisition unit”
2 “functions of the display control unit 430 and the processing unit 440 are realized by the processor 401 that reads and executes the program”
3 “For example, the display control unit 240 is realized by the processor 401”
4 “The processing unit 440 is an example of an inference execution unit”
5 “FIG. 9 illustrates the calibrated clamp force compared to the predicted clamping force”
Prosecution Insights