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 . Claims 1-9 filed on 9/30/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2019-061099, filed on 3/27/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclose statements filed on 9/30/2024, 9/30/2024, 9/30/2024, 9/30/2024, and 5/28/2026 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9/30/2024 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 9/30/2024 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “set, via a setting screen, the operations of the injection molding machine, in whole or in part;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, include limitations of merely providing settings for an injection molding machine which can reasonably be performed using pen and paper/the human mind and thus fall within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 further recites, “display a preview display screen for displaying a moving image including an image of the injection molding machine moving according to the set operations;” and “play back the moving image in the preview display screen while displaying the set operations in the setting screen.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just merely recite limitations of displaying data as a result of the applied settings which just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2016.05(f)). Finally, the recitation of the limitation of, “a CPU”, as generally recited merely represent generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering setting information and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Dependent claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 8 recites additional limitations of providing a selection to display a specific screen, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, include limitations which can reasonably be performed using pen and paper/in the human mind which falls within the, “Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 2-7 and 9 each include limitations of whether to display things 2D/3D, how screens are oriented, types of operation settings, a gauge being displayed on the screen, a playback speed setting, and a machine, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, include just a bunch of descriptive features of the display system which just generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering setting information and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wittmann (EP0997802A1).
Regarding Claim 1; Wittmann teaches; A control device for displaying a preview of operations of an injection molding machine, in whole or in part, the control device comprising: (Wittmann; at least paragraphs [0002], [0005], and [0047]; disclose a program controller and display device for use with an injection molding machine in which a preview of machine operations can be played for an operator to view a simulation of actual movements prior to actually controlling the machine)
a CPU configured to: set, via a setting screen, the operations of the injection molding machine, in whole or in part; (Wittmann; at least paragraphs [0012]-[0015]; disclose wherein an operator can select preprogramed operations or make changes to existing sequences to be displayed)
display a preview display screen for displaying a moving image including an image of the injection molding machine moving according to the set operations; and (Wittmann; at least Figs. 1a-1e; paragraphs [0024]-[0029]; disclose a display screen for displaying a moving image of the injection molding machine performing a selected operation sequence)
play back the moving image in the preview display screen while displaying the set operations in the setting screen. (Wittmann; at least Figs. 3-12; disclose displaying the playback sequence while also displaying setting screens within the same window).
Regarding Claim 2; Wittmann teaches; The control device according to claim 1, wherein the moving image is displayed three dimensionally or two dimensionally. (Wittmann; at least Figs. 1a-1e).
Regarding Claim 3; Wittmann teaches; The control device according to claim 1, wherein the setting screen and the preview display screen are displayed side by side. (Wittmann; at least Figs. 6-9).
Regarding Claim 4; Wittmann teaches; The control device according to claim 1, wherein the operations thus set are operations of the injection molding machine, in whole or in part, selected from a mold clamping operation, a mold closing and mold opening operation, an ejector operation, a screw operation, and a taking-out machine operation. (Wittmann; at least paragraph [0022]).
Regarding Claim 5; Wittmann teaches; The control device according to claim 1, wherein a gauge is displayed on the preview display screen. (Wittmann; at least Fig 3; paragraph [0031]).
Regarding Claim 6; Wittmann teaches; The control device according to claim 5, wherein the gauge is displayed on the same screen as the preview display screen. (Wittmann; at least Fig 3; paragraph [0031]).
Regarding Claim 8; Wittmann teaches; The control device according to claim 1, wherein display of the preview display screen or playback of the operations on the preview display screen is performed by selecting a corresponding button provided on the setting screen or the preview display screen. (Wittmann; at least paragraphs [0014]-[0015]).
Regarding Claim 9; Wittmann teaches; An injection molding machine comprising the control device according to claim 1. (Wittmann; at least paragraphs [0002] and [0022]-[0023]).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann (EP0997802A1) in view of Yokoo (JP2012091423A).
Regarding Claim 7; Wittmann appears to be silent on; The control device according to claim 1, wherein a playback speed of any operation among the operations is set to 100%, and the playback speed of the other operations is slowed down with respect to the operation having the 100% playback speed.
However, Yokoo teaches; The control device according to claim 1, wherein a playback speed of any operation among the operations is set to 100%, and the playback speed of the other operations is slowed down with respect to the operation having the 100% playback speed. (Yokoo; at least paragraphs [0007] and [0069]; disclose a injection molding display system and method for displaying injection molding operations wherein the display settings include providing a speed control of virtual display operations (i.e. slow motion, quick motion, fast forward, etc.)).
Wittmann and Yokoo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, injection molding control display systems and methods.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of including a playback speed method as taught by Yokoo with the known system of an injection molding simulation display system as taught by Wittmann in order to provide a way for an operator to better understand the operations of the injection mold system as taught by Yokoo (paragraph [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Meier et al. (US PGPUB 20180246502): disclose a display playback system and method in which an operation of a machine can be monitored with sensors and reproduced virtually on a display screen in real-time or for playback purposes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights