DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that “neither NPL 2023 nor NPL 2021 recites a magnetic clamping apparatus including a proximity sensor detecting proximity of the object to be clamped to the attraction face, let alone a magnetic clamping apparatus capable of performing two operations where, if a second operation that is different from the first operation is performed, the clamping operation is performed on condition that the proximity sensor is not detecting the proximity of the object to be clamped.”
Examiner does not find this persuasive because the claim is directed to an apparatus. The operations of the apparatus are intended uses.
Applicant argues regarding Pascal (NPL 2023) that “The NPL 2023 webpage states, "Clamps with sensors, a control panel and operation panel make up a safety interlock system that will help prevent accidents due to human error," but it is unclear whether those sensors are proximity sensors. From the photograph on the webpage, it can be confirmed that a control panel is shown, and it is described as "a compact and user-friendly operation panel designed exclusively for magnetic clamps." Therefore, it is presumed that some operation on this panel enables a magnetic clamped state. However, what specific operation is required is unknown.”
Examiner points out that in the same paragraph as “Clamps with sensors, a control panel and operation panel make up a safety interlock system that will help prevent accidents due to human error” that Pascal teaches that “If the die shifts or detaches even slightly, the detection system will catch it and halt operations in an emergency stop”.
In other words, Pascal teaches magnetically clamping a mold and if the mold (also known as a die) “detaches even slightly, the detection system will catch it and halt operations in an emergency stop”. Pascal teaches that the mold is detected by the detection system.
Applicant argues regarding Li (NPL 2021) that “the section titled "Closeness Detection," it is disclosed that during mold exchange, the MAG (magnetization) phase can be realized only when the mold surface is in full contact, closely clamped by the magnetic platens at each side, and no interval gap exists. From this, it can be considered that detecting, by sensors, a state in which there is no interval gap between the mold and the magnetic platen (i.e., proximity) is suggested in NPL 2021. NPL 2021 discloses that an operation using a key is performed to switch between the mold changing state and the injecting state, and that the DEMAG button is pressed for demagnetization; however, it does not disclose at all what operation is performed for magnetization.”
Examiner points out that Li teaches “Magnetic platens(magnetic clamping plates) are mold clamping plates with powerfulmagnetic force for injection molding machines. Usually it comes in one set of twoplates for a movable platen and a fixed platen.”
Magnetic platens for holding molds corresponds to the same structure in both Pascal and the present application (e.g., Fig 5 of the present application and the figure on Page 6 of Pascal).
Applicant argues that “As stated by the Examiner, based on NPL 2021, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art that, in order to improve the safety of the device, the absence of detection by a proximity sensor at the time of the second operation would be a condition for interlock control. However, neither NPL 2023 nor NPL 2021 makes any mention whatsoever of a "second operation" for causing magnetic clamping to be performed. In addition to this, although NPL 2021 states that strong magnetic force cannot be obtained and there is a risk of the mold falling if there is no proximity, we could not understand why a person with ordinary skills in the art would consider that making the absence of detection by a proximity sensor a condition would lead to improved safety.”
Examiner points out that the rejection asserts that Pascal teaches a magnetic clamp with sensors. Pascal does not specifically describe the sensor is a proximity sensor. Li teaches a similar system and discloses the use of proximity sensors in order to improve the safety of the apparatus. The rejection is the integration of proximity sensors of Li with the Pascal system. The combination of Li and Pascal would be capable of magnetically clamping depending on the result of the proximity sensor. This is the same structure as the claimed structure.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascal (NPL 20231) and in view of Li (NPL 20212).
In reference to claim 1 and 4, Pascal discloses an injection molding machine using a magnetic clamping apparatus that holds an object to be clamped on an attraction face using magnetism, comprising:
a holding member, the attraction face being formed on the holding member;
a first magnet arranged at the holding member;
a second magnet arranged at the holding member; (“magnet clamp plate consists of one set of two plates for moveable platen and fixed platen sides”)
an electromagnetic coil reversing a polarity of the first magnet with a current flowing through it; and (“Polarity of alnico magnet is inverted.” On Page 5 and 6 and see Figures showing magnetic flux on the same pages).
wherein the magnetic clamping apparatus is switched by a reversal of the polarity of the first magnet between an unclamping state in which magnetic flux from the first magnet and magnetic flux from the second magnet do not emerge on the attraction face and a clamping state in which the magnetic flux from the first magnet and the magnetic flux from the second magnet emerge on the attraction face, (“Polarity of alnico magnet is inverted.” On Page 5 and 6 and see Figures showing magnetic flux on the same pages).
Pascal further discloses a sensor (“Clamps with sensors, a control panel and operation panel …”) but does not describe the sensor being for detecting proximity of the object to be clamped to the attraction face.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, magnetic clamping, Li discloses safety tips for magnetic clamping including
“”” Mold Dislocation Detection
It detects the real time location of the mold in Injecting State, and will send an alarm signal if there’s a slight slide of the mold, to stop the running molding process.
Distance Detection
Only when the distance between the mold and magnetic platens is less than 0.2mm, will the controller authorize the proceeding of MAG and DEMAG phases. Otherwise an alarm signal will be sent to stop the running of the plastic injection machine.
Interlock Control System
This Interlock Control System allows the injection machine to work only on condition that all detection signals are normal – with both movable and fixed magnetic platens successfully magnetized and the key switched to Injecting State. ”””
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus to comprise a proximity sensor detecting proximity of the object to be clamped to the attraction face,
wherein, if a first operation is performed, a clamping operation of switching from the unclamping state into the clamping state is performed on condition that the proximity sensor is detecting the proximity of the object to be clamped, and
wherein, if a second operation that is different from the first operation is performed, the clamping operation is performed on condition that the proximity sensor is not detecting the proximity of the object to be clamped
in order to improve the safety of the apparatus.
The rejection asserts that Pascal teaches a magnetic clamp with sensors. Pascal does not specifically describe the sensor is a proximity sensor. Li teaches a similar system and discloses the use of proximity sensors in order to improve the safety of the apparatus. The rejection is the integration of proximity sensors of Li with the Pascal system. The combination of Li and Pascal would be capable of magnetically clamping depending on the result of the proximity sensor. This is the same structure as the claimed structure.
In reference to claim 2 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
The cited prior art can perform the same task.
In reference to claim 3 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Li further discloses the safety tip
“”” Magnetic Flux Detection
Release of the machine is only given if the measured magnetic flux after MAG, reaches the standard minimum predefined safety value. If this is not the case, an error is indicated. If during the injection moulding process the magnetic flux value decreases minimally, the machine stops immediately. “””
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus to comprise a detection coil detecting a change of magnetic flux when the object to be clamped moves with respect to the attraction face,
wherein, if the clamping operation has been performed based on the first operation, an abnormality in the clamping state is detected when the proximity sensor ceases detecting the proximity of the object to be clamped or the detection coil detects the change of the magnetic flux after the clamping operation, and
wherein, if the clamping operation has been performed based on the second operation, an abnormality in the clamping state is detected when the detection coil detects the change of the magnetic flux after the clamping operation
in order to improve the safety of the apparatus.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706. 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.
Examiner has utilized USPTO approved search resources, such as EIC or external tools, beyond routine search tools and/or leveraged experts in the field. Examiner has cited and explained the relevance of prior art not used in rejections but pertinent to the claims or disclosure. Examiner has provided detailed search documentation through detailed Search Notes, such as annotated search results that identify which data sets were reviewed. When citing the prior art examiner has used annotations clearly in prior art rejections such as, using item-to-item matching to the prior art, pairing exact claim language to particular language used in the prior art, and/or clearly explaining examiner’s interpretation as to how a citation maps to claim language especially when there is not a one-to-one matching of terms.
Any inquiry regarding this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are obtainable 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 ineffective, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 https://web.archive.org/web/20230306133301/https://www.pascalenginc.com/magnetic-clamps/
2 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/8-safety-attributes-hvr-mag-quick-mold-change-system-aimee
Prosecution Insights