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 .
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.
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
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning 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 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, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 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