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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-8 and 12-16) in the reply filed on 1/28/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that unity of invention exists as Group III relates to an evaluation system for a mold release agent used for die casting, which is an apparatus designed for carrying out the process. This is not found persuasive because there is no special technical feature between the groups of invention, as the common technical feature is not special as it does not make a contribution over the prior art. Note that Tetsuo (JP 2022-094564 A, cited in IDS filed 5/08/25) discloses the shared features, in particular, a deriving unit that derives an adhesion state from color quantification information corresponding to the image data of appearance of the mold acquired by the image data, based on a correlation between previously acquired color quantification information and the adhesion state of the mold release agent (Tetsuo, paragraph [0012], first acquiring color information, for example, RGB value, an L*a*b* value, brightness, or a value obtained by combining these values, paragraph [0014], second acquiring a color after the release agent is applied, paragraph [0015], calculating the application amount of the released agent). Note rejections below for further teachings of Tetsuo.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-17 are pending, wherein claim 17 was newly added. Group I (claims 1-8 and 12-16) was elected. Claims 9 and 17 have been amended to be directed to a machining liquid used for metal working and will be treated along with Group I. Claims 10-11 remain withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “wherein the machining liquid is a mold release agent used for die casting or a lubricant used for plastic working” fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Note that in claim 17, the machining liquid can be a lubricant used for plastic working. However, claim 9, from which claim 17 depends, requires the machining liquid used for metal working (see claim 9 line 2).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuo (JP 2022-094564 A, cited in IDS filed 5/08/25) in view of Maeda et al (US 2001/0031707).
Regarding claim 1, Tetsuo teaches a mold release agent adhesion state evaluation method for a mold release agent and adhering to a mold (paragraph [0001]), the method comprising:
directly causing the mold release agent to adhere to a surface of the heated mold (paragraph [0006], application step of applying the mold release agent to at least a part of a surface that defines a cavity of the mold);
acquiring an image data of appearance of the surface of the mold to which the mold release agent adheres (paragraph [0006], second acquisition step, paragraph [0014], 3D color scanner, paragraph [0012], image from the camera);
deriving an adhesion state of the mold release agent to the surface of the mold from color quantification information corresponding to the acquired image data of appearance (paragraph [0015], calculates application amount of release agent from difference in color information), based on a correlation between previously acquired color quantification information and the adhesion state of the mold release agent (paragraph [0015], calculation unit calculates the application amount based on a map or a function in which the relationship between application amount and change of color is defined in advance); and
outputting data concerning the derived adhesion state of the mold release agent (paragraph [0019], color information and application amount are stored as numerical data in association with the position on the surface).
Tetsuo is quiet to the mold release agent is used for die casting, and that the mold is heated.
Maeda teaches a release agent for low speed die casting (abstract), where low speed injection casting has been adopted for manufacturing safety parts for automobiles, which are progressively being made of aluminum from the standpoint of weight saving (paragraph [0002]). Low speed injection casting requires good lubricating property (paragraph [0003]). Maeda’s release agent includes inorganic lubricant, spherical resin particles, an organic carboxylic acid metal salt, and water (paragraph [0008]). The die was heated to about 200°C and then sprayed with the coating to form a uniform film (paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Tetsuo to be used in a die casting process, as Tetsuo is not specific to the type of molding process, and that Maeda teaches that applying release agents for die casting molds is known, as low speed die casting requires good lubricating properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the mold, so as to improve the bonding of the mold release agent to the mold.
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches wherein the mold release agent includes a solvent and an organic acid salt (Maeda, paragraph [0020-0022], organic carboxylic acid metal salt, blending of the organic acid salt may further improve lubricating property, paragraph [0023-0024], water).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein acquiring the image includes acquiring a three-dimensional image of the mold to which the mold release agent adheres (Tetsuo, paragraph [0012], 3D color scanner, image captured by the camera, paragraph [0014], paragraph [0019], photograph of the surface).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the combination teaches wherein the image data of appearance includes a color image (Tetsuo, paragraph [0012], 3D color scanner, image captured by the camera, paragraph [0014], [0019], photograph of the surface).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the combination teaches wherein the data concerning the adhesion state of the mold release agent is data corresponding to a thickness of the mold release agent (Tetsuo, paragraph [0009], application amount, for example, the thickness of a film per predetermined unit area).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the combination teaches wherein the color quantification information is lightness, hue, chroma, chromaticity, or color saturation (Tetsuo, paragraph [0012], color information, L*a*b* value (note that the L*a*b* color system represents quantitative relationship of colors on three axes, where L* value indicates Lightness and a*, b* represent chromaticity coordinates, distance from the central axis represents chroma or saturation, the angle on the chromaticity axes represents hue)).
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuo as modified by Maeda as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Sakuma (JP 2007-069217 A, cited in IDS filed 5/08/25) and Sode (EP 4026628 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the combination is quiet to wherein outputting the data includes displaying the three- dimensional image of the mold and distribution of the adhesion state of the mold release agent in association with each other.
Sakuma teaches a method of determining the quality of a release agent coating such as the distribution and thickness of the coating by detecting the state of the release agent on the mold (paragraph [0001]). Sakuma teaches an image process device for imaging visible light emitted from the cavity and displaying the outputted visible light and processed image (paragraph [0013], paragraph [0014], outputs the image processed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination to include outputting the image data by displaying the processed image, as Sakuma teaches making it easier for an operator to visually check the mold release agent and whether the applied state is good (paragraph [0003]).
The combination is quiet to displaying the three- dimensional image of the mold and distribution of the adhesion state of the mold release agent in association with each other.
However, Sode teaches monitoring the coverage of a mold surface (paragraph [0001]) coated with processing aids such as release agents (paragraph [0002]), where the characteristic infrared absorption properties are detected and thus representing and monitoring the coverage of the mold surface with spatial resolution (paragraph [0009]), and also possible to determine the thickness of the release layer at least qualitatively (paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination to further display the image of the mold and the distribution, as Sode teaches representing the mold surface with spatial resolution and enabling determining the thickness qualitatively.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuo as modified by Maeda as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Sakuma (JP 2007-069217 A, cited in IDS filed 5/08/25).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the combination is quiet to wherein outputting the data includes generating and outputting image data displayed in different colors depending on a thickness of the mold release agent derived as the adhesion state of the mold release agent.
Sakuma teaches a method of determining the quality of a release agent coating such as the distribution and thickness of the coating by detecting the state of the release agent on the mold (paragraph [0001]). Sakuma teaches an image process device for imaging visible light emitted from the cavity and displaying the outputted visible light (paragraph [0013], paragraph [0014], outputs the image processed), where the emission intensity can be measured using a measurement gauge (paragraph [0012], fig 4, paragraph [0015], note the different colors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination to include outputting image data displayed in different colors depending on a thickness of the mold release agent, as Sakuma teaches making it easier for an operator to visually check the mold release agent and whether the applied state is good (paragraph [0003]).
Claim(s) 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiba et al (JP 2013-244508 A, cited in IDS filed 5/08/25) in view of Tetsuo (JP 2022-094564 A, cited in IDS filed 5/08/25).
Regarding claim 9, Shiba et al teaches a machining liquid adhesion state evaluation method for a machining liquid used for metal working (paragraph [0001-0002], detecting a coating of a release agent for die casting of molten metal), the method comprising:
heating the mold (paragraph [0028], usually a die-casting release agent is applied to the surface of a die, the surface being at a certain temperature or higher, thus suggesting being heated);
causing the machining liquid to adhere to a surface of the heated mold directly (paragraph [0028], release agent sprayed to the surface of a die, fig 1-3, note release agent 2 on metal block 1);
deriving an adhesion state of the machining liquid to the surface of the mold from color quantification information corresponding to the appearance, based on a correlation between previously acquired color quantification information and the adhesion state of the machining liquid (paragraph [0032], visually checking the shade of the adsorbed powder to grasp the condition of the coating film of release agent, relationship between thickness of the film of release agent and amount of powder adsorbed can be previously determined).
Shiba et al teaches of visually checking the shade of an adsorbed powder on the release agent, but is quiet to acquiring an image data of appearance of the surface of the mold to which the machining liquid adheres; that the adhesion state is derived corresponding to the acquired image data, and outputting data concerning the derived adhesion state of the machining liquid.
Tetsuo teaches a method for detecting a state of a release agent applied to a mold, including acquiring color information of the surface before the release agent is applied, acquiring color information after the release agent is applied, and calculating an amount of the release agent in association with a position from a difference between the color information acquired in the first acquisition and the second acquisition step (paragraph [0006]). Color information is acquired by the acquiring unit from a 3D color scanner (paragraph [0012,0014]). The color information and the application amount are stored as numerical data in association with the position on the surface (paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shiba et al such that the visual checking of the shade of an adsorbed powder on the release agent on the mold surface is performed by acquiring an image data by a 3D color scanner, the determining of the thickness is performed by a calculation unit from the color data from the image, and that the data can be stored as numerical data, as taught in Tetsuo, in order to quantitatively evaluate the application amount of the release agent (paragraph [0019]) and that it is possible to adjust the application of the release agent based on calculated application amount of the release agent (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches wherein the machining liquid is a mold release agent used for die casting or a lubricant used for plastic working (Shiba et al, paragraph [0001], release agent for die casting).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735