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
As per MPEP §2114(II), the manner of operative the claimed device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. Many of the claims recite limitations that are directed to the intended use of the apparatus rather than the structure of the apparatus itself.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 7, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of claims 2-4, 7, and 15 recite “hall sensor” which should be capitalized as “Hall sensor”
Claim 7 line 2 recites “predetermine” which should read “predetermined”
Claim 8 recites a “silicon” member. Examiner suggests this may be a typographical or translation error and should read “silicone.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the number of times”, There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim. There is not previously mentioned number of times a mold opens. This is being interpreted to refer to any number of mold openings. Claims 2-15 are subsequently rejected as being dependent from claim 1.
The term “small amount of power” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This will be interpreted to mean any amount of power. Claim 3 is rejected as being dependent from claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the magnet unit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims. Claim 4 currently depends from claim 2 which does not previously recite a magnet unit. This is interpreted to mean anything containing a magnet.
Claim 5 recited the term “the temperature sensor for measuring surface temperature of the mold”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims. Claim 1describes a temperature sensor but does not specify that it senses the surface temperature of the mold. It is not clear if the sensor referred to in claim 5 is the same as the temperature sensor in claim 1. This will be interpreted to mean any temperature sensor that senses the mold temperature.
Claim 12 contains the trademark/trade name Bluetooth. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a communication means and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the outside.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is not clear which component is being referred to or where is “the outside” in relation to that component. This will be interpreted to mean exterior to the sensing device itself.
Claim 13 is unclear. Claim 13 mostly recites limitations about “collected data” including temperature data. Although it is not specified what data is collected or what “collected data” refers to, data generally is not a tangible or structural element of the sensing device. Claim 13 also recites “a classification algorithm of a control algorithm mounted on a controlling PCB.” It is not entirely clear what this means. Neither data nor algorithms are normally physical or structural elements that could be mounted on a PCB. Additionally, the claim does not specify that the claimed sensing device is actually performing any of the functional language claimed. It is unclear exactly what is mounted on a PCB or what the metes and bounds of the claim are.
Additionally claim 13 refers to “poor” and “good” products but it is not clear what this means because “poor” and “good” are relative terms and are not defined by the claim. This is interpreted to mean any type of product.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the quantity of good products.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims. There is no previously described good products. This is interpreted as referring to any product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samkowiak (US 2019/0342638.)
Regarding claim 1, Samkowiak meets the claimed, A sensing device fixedly installed on a mold for quality management of a molded product, the sensing device comprising: a sensor fixedly installed on a mold surface to count the number of times of mold- opening; (Samkowiak [0030] describes a Hall sensor to count the number of production cycles) and at least one or more of a temperature sensor and a sensor that are fixedly installed in a sensor module to sense temperature and vibration of the mold, respectively, for quality management of a molded product (Samkowiak [0042]-[0043] describes multiple sensors 30 a-x which include temperature and vibration sensors for monitoring molding conditions which are installed in the enclosure 12.)
Regarding claim 2, Samkowiak meets the claimed, The sensing device of claim 1, wherein the sensor for counting the number of times of mold-opening is composed of a magnet consuming a small amount of power and a magnetic sensor configured as a hall sensor (Samkowiak [0030] describes a magnetized element 11a and a Hall effect sensor as the monitor 10.)
Regarding claim 3, Samkowiak meets the claimed, The sensing device of claim 2, wherein: a magnet unit having a magnet therein is fixedly installed on a moving-side mold, (Samkowiak [0030] describe the upper mold half 52 is moved relative to the lower mold half 54, the actuator 11 having the magnetized element 11a is on the upper mold half, see Figure 2D) and the sensor module having the hall sensor therein is fixedly installed in a fixed-side mold (Samkowiak [0030] and Figure 2D show the monitor 10 on the lower mold half 54.)
Regarding claim 4, Samkowiak meets the claimed, The sensing device of claim 2, wherein: the intensity of magnetism of the magnet installed in the magnet unit decreases in inverse proportion to the cube of a distance, (Samkowiak [0030] describes a magnet, magnetic field is described as a dipole field wherein the strength of the field falls of inversely with the cube of the distance from the magnet’s center) so the magnet unit and the sensor module having the hall sensor therein are fixedly installed within a set distance, (Samkowiak [0030] describes the distance between the magnet actuator 11 and the monitor 10 is a set proximity, e.g., 0.375 inches) the hall sensor is disposed on a controlling printed circuit board (PCB) and fixedly installed at an upper portion in the sensor module, (Samkowiak [0051] describes a sensor 30 being the Hall sensor, Figure 1 shows the sensors 30 on the PCB 14 which is in the upper portion of the enclosure 12) and the magnet installed in the magnet unit is fixedly installed at an upper portion of the magnet unit (Samkowiak Figure 2C shows the magnet 11a at a front/upper portion of the actuator 11) at a predetermined distance from the mold surface due to a property that magnetic flux density decreases at high temperature (Samkowiak Figure 1 shows the actuator 11 is a fixed location on the mold 50.)
Regarding claim 6, Samkowiak meets the claimed, The sensing device of claim 1, wherein the sensor for sensing vibration of the mold is configured as an acceleration sensor or a vibration sensor that can measure vibration of the mold (Samkowiak [0042] describes vibration sensors and [0043] describes an accelerometer.)
Regarding claim 7, Samkowiak meets the claimed, The sensing device of claim 2, wherein: the hall sensor is fixedly installed at a side of a controlling PCB at a predetermine distance from the mold surface, (Samkowiak Figure 1 shows the sensors 30 installed on a PCB 14 and Figure 2D shows the monitor 11 containing the sensors 30 installed on a side of a mold, this is a predetermined distance from the mold surface) and the sensing device comprises a controller in which a microcontroller unit (MCU) (Samkowiak [0027] describes a processor 16 including a microcontroller) that receives signals measured by the sensors disposed in the sensor module, (Samkowiak [0061] describes the processor 16 receives data from the sensors 30) converts data through a mounted algorithm, (Samkowiak [0059]-[0060] describes comparing the sensor data using rules 240) and then transmits the data to an external device, (Samkowiak [0061] describes sending data to the gateway 154, see also [0038] describing connecting additional computers 164 via the gateway and receiving data) and a memory equipped with a control algorithm are fixedly mounted on the controlling PCB (Samkowiak [0032] describe a memory 22 with a program 112, see Figure 1 showing both on the PCB 14).
Regarding claim 12, Samkowiak meets the claimed, The sensing device of claim 1, wherein a Bluetooth or proximity wireless communication means that transmits data, which is obtained by processing the number of mold- opening, temperature, and a vibration signal measured by sensors through a predetermined procedure in an MCU and a control algorithm mounted on a memory, to an external device (Samkowiak [0065] describes a Bluetooth device transmits data such as counts to the data center 156) and receives data transmitted from the outside (Samkowiak [0009] describes other wireless transceivers for sending or receiving information) is disposed on a controlling PCB in the sensor module (Samkowiak [0034] describes a radio circuit which is disposed on the PCPB 14 in Figure 1 to send and receive signals.)
Regarding claim 13, Samkowiak meets the claimed, The sensing device of claim 1, wherein: collected temperature data divides a molded product production period into a preheating period, a cooling period, producing period, and a non-producing period on the basis of a classification algorithm of a control algorithm mounted on a controlling PCB, (Samkowiak [0027] describes a PCB 14) and data, which makes it possible to determine products produced in the preheating period, the cooling period, and the non-producing period as poor products or molded products with a possibility of a problem and exclude the products from the quantity of good products, is obtained, however the temperature data is not a physical or structural element of the sensor module and is therefore not patentably distinct from the prior art. It is not clear if anything in claim 13 other than the PCB is a physical or structural element of the claimed sensor. This claim is interpreted to be met by the disclosure of Samkowiak.
Regarding claim 14, Samkowiak meets the claimed, The sensing device of claim 6, wherein a vibration signal measured by the acceleration sensor or the vibration sensor (Samkowiak [0042]-[0043] describe temperature sensors and vibration sensors or accelerometers) at a point in time of end of packing or start of cooling depends on a difference between a magnitude of packing pressure and a magnitude of back pressure, and data that makes it possible to determine that there is a problem with the quality of a molded product when an amplitude magnitude of a vibration signal departs from a set magnitude is obtained, Samkowiak describes the vibration sensor or accelerometer. The limitations in the claim directed to the signals themselves are not directed to physical or structural elements of the sensor being claimed and are therefore not patentably distinct from the prior art. The sensors in Samkowiak [0042]-[0043] are capable of measuring vibration signals and therefore meet the claim.
Regarding claim 15, Samkowiak meets the claimed, The sensing device of claim 3, wherein: the intensity of magnetism of the magnet installed in the magnet unit decreases in inverse proportion to the cube of a distance, (Samkowiak [0030] describes a magnet, magnetic field is described as a dipole field wherein the strength of the field falls of inversely with the cube of the distance from the magnet’s center) so the magnet unit and the sensor module having the hall sensor therein are fixedly installed within a set distance, (Samkowiak [0030] describes the distance between the magnet actuator 11 and the monitor 10 is a set proximity, e.g., 0.375 inches) the hall sensor is disposed on a controlling printed circuit board (PCB) and fixedly installed at an upper portion in the sensor module, (Samkowiak [0051] describes a sensor 30 being the Hall sensor, Figure 1 shows the sensors 30 on the PCB 14 which is in the upper portion of the enclosure 12) and the magnet installed in the magnet unit is fixedly installed at an upper portion of the magnet unit (Samkowiak Figure 2C shows the magnet 11a at a front/upper portion of the actuator 11) at a predetermined distance from the mold surface due to a property that magnetic flux density decreases at high temperature (Samkowiak Figure 1 shows the actuator 11 is a fixed location on the mold 50.)
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.
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.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samkowiak modified by Poynor (US 2003/0072831.)
Regarding claim 5, Samkowiak meets the claimed, The sensing device of claim 1, wherein: the temperature sensor for measuring surface temperature of the mold and the sensor for sensing vibration of the mold are fixedly installed on a measuring PCB, (Samkowiak [0027] and Figure 1 shows the sensors 30 on the PCB 14) the measuring PCB is fixedly installed in an sensor module bottom case (Samkowiak [0028] describes the enclosure 12) to directly measure surface temperature of the mold, (Samkowiak [0011] describes measuring the temperature of the mold) and a material of the sensor module bottom case is a metallic material (Samkowiak [0028] describes the enclosure is an aluminum material.)
Samkowiak describes the enclosure is aluminum but does not describe the material of the mold itself and does not meet the claimed, that is the same as the mold or has thermal conductivity higher than a mold material.
Analogous in the field of molding cycle monitors, Poynor also describes a device for counting the number of molding cycles and meets the claimed, material that is the same as the mold or has thermal conductivity higher than a mold material (Poynor [0016] describes the mold is made of aluminum.)
The courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the mold of Samkowiak with the aluminum mold of Poynor because aluminum is a known material for injection molds, see Poynor [0016].
Regarding claim 11, Samkowiak meets the claimed, The sensing device of claim 5, further comprising a button for checking installation of the sensor module fixedly installed on the sensor module bottom case and installed toward the mold surface (Samkowiak [0056] describes a tamper sensor 30c (button) and corresponding conductive strip which contacts the sensor 30c, see Figure 1 showing the sensor 30c on the lower and exterior portion of the enclosure 12) to be able to check installation of the sensor module on the mold surface (Samkowiak [0056] describes the tamper sensor 30c detects the installation via detecting if the access panel 34 is properly closed (installed) or open) or sense separation of the sensor module from the mold.
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samkowiak modified by Fang (CN210168196U, see English translation provided) and Scott (US 2010/0055550.)
Regarding claim 8, Samkowiak meets the claimed, The sensing device of claim 1, wherein: a battery for supplying electrical energy to electronic parts disposed in the sensor module (Samkowiak [0041] describes a battery.)
Samkowiak does not provide further details about the battery or its installation and does not meet the claimed, is fixedly installed between a measuring PCB and a controlling PCB. Analogous in the field of small electronic devices, Fang also describes a battery powered device which uses PCBs and meets the claimed, a battery is fixedly installed between a measuring PCB and a controlling PCB (Fang [0034] describes a battery 12 located between a charging PCB 13 and a PCB board assembly 11.)
The courts have held that substituting one known prior art element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the singular PCB and battery of Samkowiak with the dual PCB and battery located between them as described in Fang because it advantageously provides a configuration which allows the charging PCB to charge the battery while the PCB board 13 can operate the device, see Fang [0034] and [0036].
Still, Fang does not specify the particular housing assembly and does not meet the claimed, battery is fixedly installed on a battery-fixing member and a silicon member for fixing the battery is fixedly installed over the battery such that the battery is not separated from the battery-fixing member.
Analogous in the field of small electronic devices, Scott also describes a small electronic device using a battery to power a circuit board and meets the claimed, a battery is fixedly installed on a battery-fixing member (Scott [0035] describes a screw plate 320 houses a battery 318) and a silicon member for fixing the battery is fixedly installed over the battery such that the battery is not separated from the battery-fixing member (Scott [0031] describes a silicone gasket 400, see Figure 4 showing the gasket does not separate the battery 318 from the screw plate 320.)
The courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the battery located between the two circuit boards as described in Samkowiak as modified by Fang with the screw plate fixing member of Scott in order to easily retain the battery within the appropriate cavity, see Scott [0029], and with the silicone gasket member as described in Scott in order to provide a seal to prevent intrusion of water or dust, see Scott [0030].
Regarding claim 9, Samkowiak does not describe an insulating plate and does not meet claim 9. Scott further meets the claimed, The sensing device of claim 8, wherein an insulating plate is fixedly installed under the battery-fixing member to prevent a use temperature limit of the battery from being exceeded by minimizing heat transferring to the battery (Scott [0038] describes an insulator cup 322 made of a material such as rubber. See Figure 4 showing the insulator cup extends above and below the battery 318.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the battery of modified Samkowiak with the rubber insulating cup of Scott in order to protect the terminals of the battery, see Scott [0038].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samkowiak modified by Starkey (US 2011/0316180.)
Regarding claim 10, Samkowiak does not describe an LCD and does not meet the claimed, The sensing device of claim 1, wherein: a liquid crystal display for displaying sensor module information is fixedly installed in a sensor module top case, and the liquid crystal display for displaying sensor module information is configured to be able to display one of the final number of shots, a mold-closing state, a battery level, communication sensitivity between a terminal and a controller, an installation state, and whether there is stored data by operating a button for operating the sensor module.
Analogous in the field of mold sensors and counters, Starkey also describes a monitor for counting the number of mold cycles and meets the claimed, The sensing device of claim 1, wherein: a liquid crystal display for displaying sensor module information is fixedly installed in a sensor module top case, (Starkey [0036] and [0038] describes an LCD display 65, see Figure 1 showing the display 65 on the top portion of the housing 80) and the liquid crystal display for displaying sensor module information is configured to be able to display one of the final number of shots, a mold-closing state, a battery level, communication sensitivity between a terminal and a controller, an installation state, and whether there is stored data by operating a button for operating the sensor module (Starkey [0039] describes displaying total cycles and battery level.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the sensor of Samkowiak with the display of Starkey in order to readily display data to the user, see Starkey [0036].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2020/0290258: see [0017] describing a sensor having a counter for an injection mold, [0012] describing PCBs, and [0018] describing a battery
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744