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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not grammatically correct and contains legal phraseology. For example, the second sentence does not start with a definite article (eg. “the”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “ an injection molding machine; a server that is configured to communicate with the injection molding machine…the injection molding machine is configured to transmit the data to the server at a predetermined timing”.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a controller (claims 8-11) and a server (claim 1), which is a mechanical and/or electrical device such as a general purpose computer in communication with sensors. Thus, the claim is to a manufacture or a machine, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. There are no nature based product limitations in this claim (polyurethane is not a nature-based product), and thus the markedly different characteristics analysis is not performed. However, the claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited “indicative of an operating state” could be performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii) and (iii). Nor does the recitation of a controller in this claim negate the mental nature of this limitation because the claim here merely uses the controller as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites the additional element of the injection molding machine “communicate with the server and that displays information from the server”. An evaluation of whether limitation (a) is insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong Two analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation (a) is well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites only a generic “sever” or “controller” and do not integrate the measured “operating state” data into a physical molding step. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the controller is the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. Here, the recitation of a controller/server being configured to indicate the operating state of the mold is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality and is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation (a) does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and
insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-11 are not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 4, the further claimed “the injection molding machine is configured to start the molding operation after the transmission of the data is completed.” are considered insignificant extra solution activity. The claim does not indicate that the molding machine changes its function or operation based on the data. Therefore, claim 4 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites and “and (d) transmitting data indicative of an operating state of the injection molding machine to the external server”. Step 2A Prong One: These limitations also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited “indicative of an operating state” could be performed in the human mind. Step 2A Prong Two: The further claimed “(a) causing the injection molding machine to perform a molding operation” is considered insignificant extra solution activity. The claim does not indicate that the molding machine changes its function or operation based on the data. Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. Here, the recitation of a controller/server being configured to indicate the operating state of the mold is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality and is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation (a) does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). Therefore, claim 12 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arita et al. (US 2022/0355522 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Arita meet the claimed injection molding machine system comprising: an injection molding machine; (Arita teaches injection molding machine 1, Fig. 1, [0029]) a server that is configured to communicate with the injection molding machine (the management device 2 is an on-premises server or a cloud server installed in a remote location, [0126]) and that stores data indicative of an operating state of the injection molding machine; (perform various diagnoses such as an abnormality diagnosis of the injection molding machine 1, [0127]) and a terminal apparatus that is configured to communicate with the server and that displays information from the server, (Arita teaches operation screen displayed on the display unit 760 is used for the setting relating to the injection molding machine 1, [0121], in addition, the management device 2 may be a stationary terminal device (for example, desktop computer terminal) in the factory where the injection molding machine 1 is installed, see [0126]) wherein the injection molding machine is configured to transmit the data to the server (the management device 2 may transmit control data (for example, data relating to various setting conditions such as molding conditions) to the injection molding machine 1 through the communication line NW, [0128])
Arita does not explicitly teach transmit the data indicative of an operating state at a predetermined timing and when the injection molding machine is not performing a molding operation.
Arita teaches the management device 2 may confirm whether the versions of the plurality of injection molding machines 1 are within the range at each predetermined timing. The predetermined timing may be, for example, when any injection molding machine 1 of the plurality of injection molding machines 1 is booted [0129]. Arita teaches predetermined time is a threshold at which it can be determined that an abnormality has occurred in the system software 7021 being executed by the CPU 701 and the watchdog signal cannot be transmitted, see [0155], Fig. 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to transmit the data at a predetermined timing and when the injection molding machine is not performing a molding operation because it allows management device 2 to notify the serviceman to repair it before molding begins, see [0129].
Regarding claim 4, Arita as modified meets the claimed injection molding machine system according to claim 1, wherein when a condition for starting the molding operation is satisfied during transmission of the data to the server (Arita teaches perform various diagnoses such as an abnormality diagnosis of the injection molding machine 1, [0127]) the injection molding machine is configured to start the molding operation after the transmission of the data is completed. Arita teaches predetermined time is a threshold at which it can be determined that an abnormality has occurred in the system software 7021 being executed by the CPU 701 and the watchdog signal cannot be transmitted, see [0155], Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 5, Arita as modified meets the claimed injection molding machine system according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined timing can be set from the terminal apparatus and/or the server. (Arita teaches operation screen displayed on the display unit 760 is used for the setting relating to the injection molding machine 1, [0121], in addition, the management device 2 may be a stationary terminal device (for example, desktop computer terminal) in the factory where the injection molding machine 1 is installed, see [0126])
Regarding claim 6, Arita as modified meets the claimed injection molding machine system according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined timing can be set in the injection molding machine. Arita teaches operation screen displayed on the display unit 760 is used for the setting relating to the injection molding machine 1, [0121], Examiner notes that this meets the claimed “in the injection molding machine”.
Regarding claim 8, Arita meets the claimed controller for use in an injection molding machine ; (Arita teaches injection molding machine 1, Fig. 1, [0029]) configured to communicate with an external server, the controller comprising: a processor; (the management device 2 is an on-premises server or a cloud server installed in a remote location, [0126]) and a storage apparatus that stores a program for execution by the processor, (a memory device 702, [0108]) wherein by executing the program, the processor is configured to cause the injection molding machine to perform a molding operation, (control device 700 repeatedly manufactures a molding product by causing the injection molding machine 1 to repeatedly perform a mold closing process, [0113]) a and transmit data indicative of an operating state of the injection molding machine to the external server (control device 700 receives a signal from the outside or outputs a signal to the outside through the interface device 704. For example, the control device 700 is communicably connected to the management device 2 through the communication line NW based on the interface device 704, see [0108])
Arita does not explicitly teach the claimed at a predetermined timing and when the injection molding machine is not performing the molding operation.
Arita teaches the management device 2 may confirm whether the versions of the plurality of injection molding machines 1 are within the range at each predetermined timing. The predetermined timing may be, for example, when any injection molding machine 1 of the plurality of injection molding machines 1 is booted [0129]. Arita teaches predetermined time is a threshold at which it can be determined that an abnormality has occurred in the system software 7021 being executed by the CPU 701 and the watchdog signal cannot be transmitted, see [0155], Fig. 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to transmit the data at a predetermined timing and when the injection molding machine is not performing a molding operation because it allows management device 2 to notify the serviceman to repair it before molding begins, see [0129].
Regarding claim 9, Arita meets the claimed controller for use in an injection molding machine ; (Arita teaches injection molding machine 1, Fig. 1, [0029]) configured to communicate with an external server, (the management device 2 is an on-premises server or cloud server installed in a remote location, [0126]) the controller comprising: a molding control unit that controls a molding operation of the injection molding machine; (control device 700 repeatedly manufactures a molding product by causing the injection molding machine 1 to repeatedly perform a mold closing process, [0113]) a state management unit that manages an operating state of the injection molding machine; and a communication unit that transmits data indicative of the operating state to the external server, (Arita teaches control device 700 and interface device 704 to perform the functions of the claimed molding control unit, management unit, and communication unit, see [0108]. For example, Arita teaches , the control device 700 receives a signal from the outside or outputs a signal to the outside through the interface device 704, see [0108], Fig. 1) wherein the state management unit is configured to transmit the data to the external server via the communication unit (the control device 700 is communicably connected to the management device 2 through the communication line NW based on the interface device 704. [0108])
Arita does not explicitly teach at a predetermined timing and when the injection molding machine is not performing the molding operation.
Arita teaches the management device 2 may confirm whether the versions of the plurality of injection molding machines 1 are within the range at each predetermined timing. The predetermined timing may be, for example, when any injection molding machine 1 of the plurality of injection molding machines 1 is booted [0129]. Arita teaches predetermined time is a threshold at which it can be determined that an abnormality has occurred in the system software 7021 being executed by the CPU 701 and the watchdog signal cannot be transmitted, see [0155], Fig. 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to transmit the data at a predetermined timing and when the injection molding machine is not performing a molding operation because it allows management device 2 to notify the serviceman to repair it before molding begins, see [0129].
Regarding claim 10, Arita as modified meets the claimed injection molding machine comprising the controller according to claim 8. (Arita teaches injection molding machine 1, Fig. 1, [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Arita as modified meets the claimed injection molding machine comprising the controller according to claim 9. (Arita teaches injection molding machine 1, Fig. 1, [0029]).
Regarding claim 12, Arita meets the claimed method for controlling an injection molding machine configured to communicate with an external server , (the management device 2 is an on-premises server or a cloud server installed in a remote location, [0126]) the method including: (a) causing the injection molding machine to perform a molding operation; (control device 700 repeatedly manufactures a molding product by causing the injection molding machine 1 to repeatedly perform a mold closing process, [0113]) (b) determining whether or not a predetermined timing has come; (Arita teaches step S104, Fig. 4, determining has predetermined time elapsed) (c) determining whether or not the injection molding machine is performing the molding operation; (Examiner notes the order of steps is not limited by the claim. Arita meets the claim with step S102, Fig. 2, determine is there a watchdog signal) and (d) transmitting data indicative of an operating state of the injection molding machine to the external server (the control device 700 is communicably connected to the management device 2 through the communication line NW based on the interface device 704. [0108])
Arita does not explicitly teach step (d) to occur at a predetermined timing and when the injection molding machine is not performing the molding operation.
Arita teaches the management device 2 may confirm whether the versions of the plurality of injection molding machines 1 are within the range at each predetermined timing. The predetermined timing may be, for example, when any injection molding machine 1 of the plurality of injection molding machines 1 is booted [0129]. Arita teaches predetermined time is a threshold at which it can be determined that an abnormality has occurred in the system software 7021 being executed by the CPU 701 and the watchdog signal cannot be transmitted, see [0155], Fig. 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to transmit the data at a predetermined timing and when the injection molding machine is not performing a molding operation because it allows management device 2 to notify the serviceman to repair it before molding begins, see [0129].
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arita et al. (US 2022/0355522 A1) in view of Tanida (US 2022/0274305 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Arita is silent on the injection molding machine system according to claim 1, wherein when a condition for starting the molding operation is satisfied during transmission of the data to the server, the injection molding machine is configured to suspend the transmission of the data and start the molding operation.
Tanida renders obvious the claimed wherein when a condition for starting the molding operation is satisfied during transmission of the data to the server, the injection molding machine is configured to suspend the transmission of the data and start the molding operation.
Tanida teaches the host controller 700A may monitor the operation state of the injection molding machine 1 based on the detection data of various sensors of the injection molding machine 1 and transmit command data to subordinate controller 700B, [0127]. Tanida teaches in Fig. 5 a schematic diagram display unit 5100 displays a schematic diagram (time chart) schematically illustrating processing relating to data communication between the host controller 700A and the subordinate controller 700B, see [0184]. Examiner notes that as shown in Fig. 5 the “D” is sent before a subordinate control process begins.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to condition starting, suspend transmission of data, and starting molding in the process of Arita because Tanida teaches receiving data so that subordinate controller 700B can improve the control performance of the injection molding machine 1 based on the data D, see [0176].
Regarding claim 3, Arita in view of Tanida meets the claimed injection molding machine system according to claim 2, wherein when the transmission of the data is suspended, the injection molding machine is configured to resume the transmission of the data after the molding operation is completed. Tanida teaches each control cycle T_CTL1 and acquire the data received from the subordinate controller 700B (for example, detection data of various sensors), see [0130]. Tanida teaches in Fig. 3A a schematic diagram (time chart) As illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B, in the present example, in the controller 700, the control cycles T_CTL1 and T_CTL2 are set to be the same as each other, and the communication cycle T_COM is set to ½ (half) of the control cycles T_CTL1 and T_CTL2, [0152] Examiner notes that T_CLT2 begins only after the end of the first control cycle and meet the claim.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arita et al. (US 2022/0355522 A1) in view of Tajika et al. (US 2020/0282617 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Arita as modified is silent on the claimed injection molding machine system according to claim 1, wherein when an abnormality occurs in the injection molding machine, the server is configured to transmit alarm information to the terminal apparatus.
Tajika teaches wherein when an abnormality occurs in the injection molding machine, the server is configured to transmit alarm information to the terminal apparatus. Tajika teaches the injection molding machine is determined to be in an abnormal state [0007], if the presence of an abnormal state is ascertained by the ascertainment unit 102, the alarm unit 103 alerts an operator that the injection molding machine 1 is in an abnormal state. At the same time, the information about the abnormal movable part outputted from the ascertainment unit 102 can be provided to the operator. Specific examples of the alerting means include display on a liquid crystal monitor or the like, and a voice notification.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the alarm/alert of Tajika on the visual display of the injection molding apparatus of Arita because the issuance of the alarm allows the operator to check the state of the abnormal movable part of the injection molding machine, see Tajika [0047].
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoda et al. (US 2022/0203592 A1) teaches [0100] Further, the error processing function Fe monitors the parting opening amount Lm from the injection start, monitors whether the size of the parting opening amount Lm has reached the set error determination value Lmj and performs predetermined error processing if the size of the parting opening amount Lm has reached the error determination value Lmj (steps S17 and S18). For example, as the error processing, control for immediately stopping the operation of the injection molding machine M or control for outputting an alarm can be performed. Accordingly, setting the fast injection speed Vf enables the quick detection of excessive injection pressure, generating an abnormally high resin pressure in mold 2. Therefore, it is possible to quickly perform error processing such as operation stop, thereby preventing damage to mold 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744