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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendments filed 5/15/2026, the previous objections to the claim and rejections under 112 are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references do not meet all the limitations of the amended claim 1. Applicant notes that Samkowiak describes the use of generic timers and vibration sensors but does not disclose coupling the vibration sensor via a transfer medium made of the same material as the mold. Examiner agrees that Samkowiak does not disclose the material the mold is made out of and does not meet this claim. However, Samkowiak does explain that the vibration sensor is coupled to the mold via the enclosure 12 which is made of aluminum. Previously cited Poynor discloses a mold made from aluminum. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the aluminum mold of Poynor in place of the mold of Samkowiak. Applicant notes that the reason for using the same material is to reduce distortion but recognizing another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Applicant argues that Poynor does not describe the amended features either but does not provide any specific or persuasive support for this assertion.
Applicant also argues that Samkowiak does not describe measuring the vibration signal at various points during injection molding or determine a product defective when the vibration signals depart from a predetermined amplitude. Examiner disagrees. First, this is the intended use of the apparatus and does not impart any structural limitations on the apparatus. Second, the claim does not actually recite that the sensing device is performing these limitations. The claim says “wherein a vibration signal is measured” but does not specify who or what is doing the measuring. Likewise, the claim recites “comparing and analyzing” without specifying who or what is doing the comparing or analyzing. It is not positively recited that the sensing device is performing these actions at all in the claim. Even so, Samkowiak [0045] describes that the sensor data is updated continuously throughout the molding cycle and an alarm can be triggered when the sensed values exceed a predetermined limit.
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, for example measuring data with sensors, transmitting data, or making determinations based on data.
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 1-5, 7, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samkowiak (US 2019/0342638) modified by Poynor (US 2003/0072831.)
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 module fixedly installed on a mold surface to count a 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 the 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) 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]-[0043] describe temperature sensors and vibration sensors or accelerometers) wherein the sensor module or the vibration sensor is coupled to the mold via a transfer medium (Samkowiak Figure 1 and [0028] describe the vibration sensor is coupled to the mold via enclosure 12 which is made of aluminum) wherein a vibration signal is measured at various points in time during a product production period including start of injection, switch of packing, end of packing and at least one additional time during the product production period, and comparing and analyzing the measured vibration signals to determine that a defective product has been produced when the amplitude magnitude of the vibration signal departs from a predetermined amplitude magnitude range (Samkowiak [0045] explains that data is collected from the sensors 30 at polling times and is continuously updated and can alarm if the sensor values exceed a predetermined limit. This is the intended use of the apparatus and does not impart any structural limitations on the apparatus other than the apparatus is capable of collecting data from the vibration sensor. It is not positively claimed that the sensing device is “comparing and analyzing.” )
Samkowiak describes the sensors are sealed in the enclosure 12 which is made of aluminum but does not explicitly describe the material of the mold and does not meet the claimed, wherein the sensor module or the vibration sensor is coupled to the mold via a transfer medium made of a same material as the mold to minimize distortion and attenuation of the vibration signal.
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 wherein the sensor module or the vibration sensor is coupled to the mold via a transfer medium made of a same material as the mold to minimize distortion and attenuation of the vibration signal. (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 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 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 embedded 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 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.)
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 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 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.
Regarding claim 12, Samkowiak meets the claimed, The sensing device of claim 1, wherein a short range 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 external device (Samkowiak Figure 4 show the communication paths 302, 304, 306 each are two way communication to the data center 156 and back) 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: measured 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 stored 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 defective products or molded products with a possibility of a problem and exclude the products from the quantity of acceptable 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. None of the limitations in claim 13 other than the PCB are physical or structural elements of the claimed sensor. This claim is interpreted to be met by the disclosure of Samkowiak.
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samkowiak as modified by Poynor as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of 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 silicone 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 silicone 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 as modified by Poynor as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights