Detailed Office action
The communication dated 2/3/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-4 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “mold clamping pressure or Pc” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Pc. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: chuck mechanism in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 2 has the limitation “chuck mechanism”. The Examiner interprets this
under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the place holder term “mechanism” and (B) the terms “mechanism” is modified by the functional language “chuck or chucking” and (C) the term “mechanism” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of chucking. The Examiner interprets “chuck mechanism” as the gear-holder-like device 8 in instant FIG. 4 or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that a mold clamping pressure is set to zero while a predetermined back pressure is applied to the movable mold. These two limitations are contradictory. Applying a clamping pressure between two mold halves is known to be the same as applying a force or pressure to one of mold halves or both (known as clamping). Therefore, applying a back pressure to movable mold indicates that the mold clamping pressure is non-zero and cannot be zero. As such this claim is indefinite and rejected. Claims 2-4 are dependent on claim 1 and are rejected as well. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation of "setting a mold clamping pressure to zero" as that the two mold halves are not forcibly in contact with each other.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by HAKODA (JP-2007118349-A and its English translation), hereinafter HAKODA. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, HAKODA discloses An injection molding machine including a molding machine controller and adapted to perform molding by injecting and filling a plasticized molten resin by an injection device into a mold clamped by a mold clamping device {[0001], [0003], [0008], [0029] note the controller} wherein the molding machine controller comprises:
a mold clamping controller configured to provide a predetermined mold gap between a movable mold and a stationary mold of the mold by controlling the mold clamping device {[0029] note the controller also controls the mold opening/closing or mold clamping, [0008] note mold gap G that is preset between the fixed or stationary mold 1c and movable mold 1m},
to set a mold clamping pressure to zero, and to set a predetermined back pressure for the movable mold {see section 112(b) above, [0008] note controlling the position of the movable mold indicates that a back pressure is applied, [0011] note that the pressure that is applied by a required amount is the back pressure or predetermined back pressure, [0045] note that no clamping step indicates that the molds are not clamped together, and note that the pressure holding process indicates a back pressure applied to the movable mold};
and an injection controller configured to perform an injection filling process of injecting and filling the molten resin, by controlling the injection device, into the mold for which the mold gap, the mold clamping pressure, and the back pressure have been set, and a filling end process of ending the injection filling process when a predetermined injection end condition set beforehand is satisfied as a result of the injection filling process {[0019] note control of the injection process, [0045] note moving to injection step while the parameters are set, [0046] note the end of injection and filling, note time "te" for the end process and mold receiving a force in the opening direction that is already programmed or set beforehand to be recognized}.
Regarding claim 2, HAKODA discloses wherein the mold clamping device includes a movable platen supported by a tie bar mechanism section to be movable forward and rearward and supporting the movable mold, a mold clamping platen supported by the tie bar mechanism section to be movable forward and rearward and including a mold clamping drive mechanism section for performing clamping of the movable mold, and a chuck mechanism section integrally provided on the mold clamping platen, the chuck mechanism being capable of fixing the mold clamping platen at a predetermined position on the tie bar mechanism section {see section 112f above [FIG. 3] tie bar 13, moveable mold 1m, moveable platen 21, gear or chuck mechanism at the end of left-hand-side of tie bar 13, [0023]-[0024]}.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ASHIDA (JP-2009297912-A and its English translation), hereinafter ASHIDA. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, ASHIDA discloses An injection molding machine including a molding machine controller and adapted to perform molding by injecting and filling a plasticized molten resin by an injection device into a mold clamped by a mold clamping device {[0001], [0008], [0014], [0025] note the molding machine controller 61}, wherein the molding machine controller comprises:
a mold clamping controller configured to provide a predetermined mold gap between a movable mold and a stationary mold of the mold by controlling the mold clamping device {[0001], [0006] note the fixed and moveable mold halves, [0008] note predetermined gap L1},
to set a mold clamping pressure to zero, and to set a predetermined back pressure for the movable mold {see section 112(b) above, [0010] note clamping at a first position X1 requires a back pressure, [0041] note performing a position control at X1 requires a back pressure, [0043] note force applied to piston 34 is the back pressure on the movable mold, [FIG. 8] note at X1 with the predetermined gap L1, the half molds 2m and 2c are not clamped thus no clamping is performed};
and an injection controller configured to perform an injection filling process of injecting and filling the molten resin, by controlling the injection device, into the mold for which the mold gap, the mold clamping pressure, and the back pressure have been set, and a filling end process of ending the injection filling process when a predetermined injection end condition set beforehand is satisfied as a result of the injection filling process {[0046] note moving to injection step while the parameters are set, [0050] note reaching the secondary clamping start point that is the predetermined injection end condition}.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASHIDA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of HAKODA. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 2, ASHIDA discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. ASHIDA further discloses wherein the mold clamping device includes a movable platen supported by a tie bar mechanism section to be movable forward and rearward and supporting the movable mold {[0023] note tie bars that allow free movement of the movable platen that moves movable mold},
a mold clamping platen supported by the tie bar mechanism section to be movable forward and rearward and including a mold clamping drive mechanism section for performing clamping of the movable mold {[FIG. 2] note tie bar 32, movable platen 33, movable mold 2m and clamping mechanism 34-38}.
ASHIDA, however, is silent on a chuck mechanism section integrally provided on the mold clamping platen, the chuck mechanism being capable of fixing the mold clamping platen at a predetermined position on the tie bar mechanism section.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to injection molding machine, HAKODA discloses and a chuck mechanism section integrally provided on the mold clamping platen, the chuck mechanism being capable of fixing the mold clamping platen at a predetermined position on the tie bar mechanism section {note section 112f above, [0023]-[0024] note the gear mechanism that is the equivalent form of the chuck mechanism, [FIG. 3] note the gears on the end of the left-hand-side of tie bars 13}.
At the effective filing date of the instant of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the chuck mechanism of HAKODA in the molding machine of ASHIDA. As disclosed by HAKODA, the advantage of this chuck mechanism is accurate adjustment of back and forth movement of the platen and the moveable half mold {[0024]}.
Regarding claim 3, ASHIDA discloses wherein the mold clamping drive mechanism section includes a mold clamping cylinder {[0008] note clamping cylinder}.
Regarding claim 4, ASHIDA discloses wherein the molding machine controller includes a meter-out circuit connected to the mold clamping cylinder {[0008] note hydraulic circuit is the meter-out circuit}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights