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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a third gain associated with a derivative component at least one of the first, second, and third gains”. It’s not clear if applicant intends to recite “a third gain associated with a derivative component”.
Claims 2-4 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the comparison" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shearer et al. (US 6,108,587) in view of Araki et al. (CN103057071).
Regarding claim 1, Shearer et al. discloses a method for normalizing control of an injection molding machine 10, the method comprising:
Obtaining, form a model database 70, a model 78 for a first injection molding machine and a model for the mold (see col. 1, line 55-67, col. 5, line 28-45),
Determining an initial gain value 92 for a proportional-integral-derivative controller 98 that drives operation of a screw 22 of the first injection molding machine, the PID controller having (i) a first gain associated with a proportional component; (ii) a second gain associated with an integral component; and (iii) a third gain associated with a derivative component; and
Setting, using the initial gain value, at least one of the first second, and third gains of the PID controller (see col. 6, line 57-col. 8, line 22, fig. 1-6). Shearer et al. does not teach obtaining a model for a second injection molding machine, analyzing the model of the mold and the model of the second molding machine to determine a correlation between injection molding machine parameters and mold cycle performance for the mold, and applying the correlation to parameters within the model of the first injection molding machine. However, Araki et al. teaches an injection molding machine management system, the management system has multiple management units, and one management unit consists of multiple injection molding machines, a management unit 10, and any number of display units 20. The information managed by the management device 10 includes production information such as molding quality information for each cycle of the injection molding machine, information related to the operation status of the injection molding machine information related to the operation of the injection molding machine, information related to the operation of the injection molding machine, molding conditions, and production schedules obtained from the injection molding machines as molding quality information for use in display or printing. The information stored in the storage section 38 of the first injection molding machine 30-1 can be transferred to other injection molding machines (see para 36-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shearer et al. with the teaching of Araki et al. to facilitate transferring production information between the management units to realized production management of a molding plant in a flexible manner.
Regarding claim 2, Shearer et al. discloses wherein setting the initial gain value comprises:
Setting, using the initial gain value, at least one of the first, second, or third gains of the PID controller to alter an injection pressure 18 of the injection molding machine (see col. 6, line 57-col. 8, line 22, fig. 1-6, abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Shearer et al. discloses wherein setting the initial gain value comprises:
Setting, using the initial gain value, at least one of the first, second, or third gains of the PID controller to alter an injection velocity of the injection molding machine (see abstract, fig. 2-3, claim 8, 11-12).
Regarding claim 4, Shearer et al. discloses based on the comparison and the model of the mold, adjusting characteristic 72 of the mold cycle (see fig. 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742