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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US-20210114306) in view of Tsunoya (US-20210299959) and Shin (KR20170111089), using the attached original document and translation.
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki teaches:
A material supplying ([0019]; Fig. 1, #100) device comprising:
a plasticizing section configured to plasticize a material to generate a plasticization material ([0024] – [0026]; Fig. 1, #30);
a nozzle configured to supply the plasticization material to outside ([0024]; Fig. 1, #69);
a supply control mechanism that is provided in a flow path ([0030]; Fig. 1, #62) communicating with the plasticizing section and the nozzle and that is configured to adjust supply amount of the plasticization material from the nozzle to outside ([0090] – [0095]; Fig. 13, #80); and
a control section configured to control operation of the supply control mechanism ([0091]; Fig. 1, #500).
Yamazaki does not teach:
a pressure sensor configured to measure the pressure of the plasticization material in the flow path;
wherein the control section is configured to calculate a backlash value indicating backlash of the supply control mechanism based on detection data including a detection value output from the pressure sensor and
the detection data is data including, in time series, the detection values output from the pressure sensor in at least a part of a period during a first operation of using the supply control mechanism to reduce the supply amount of the plasticization material from the nozzle and a period during a second operation of using the supply control mechanism to increase the supply amount of the plasticization material from the nozzle.
However, Tsunoya, in a similar field of endeavor, a material supplying device with a supply control mechanism, teaches:
a pressure sensor configured to measure the pressure of the plasticization material in the flow path ([0044], [0058], and [0078] – [0079]; Fig. 1, #10b and #11); and
wherein the control section is configured to receive and utilize detection data including a detection value output from the pressure sensor ([0058] and [0061]; Fig. 1, #11 and #23)
the detection data is data including, in time series, the detection values output from the pressure sensor in at least a part of a period during a first operation of using the supply control mechanism to reduce the supply amount of the plasticization material from the nozzle and a period during a second operation of using the supply control mechanism to increase the supply amount of the plasticization material from the nozzle ([0061], [0063], and [0078] – [0079]; Fig. 4, #13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material supplying device of Yamazaki to incorporate the teachings of Tsunoya and include a pressure sensor, and the control section using data from the pressure sensor. The purpose, as stated by Tsunoya, being the suction section 13 are provided between the plasticizing section 27 and the ejection port 10a, and play a role as the ejection adjustment mechanism that switches between suspension and resumption of ejection of the shaping material from the ejection port 10a. Here, the pressure measurement section 11 measures the pressure in the flow channel 10b after adjustment by the ejection adjustment mechanism ([0078]).
Yamazaki in view of Tsunoya does not teach:
wherein the control section is configured to calculate a backlash value indicating backlash of the supply control mechanism based on detection data including a detection value output from the pressure sensor.
However, Shin, in a similar field of endeavor, a material supplying device, teaches:
wherein the control section is configured to calculate a backlash value indicating backlash of the supply control mechanism based on detection data including a detection value output from the pressure sensor ([0006], [0012], [0014], [0016] – [0017], [0022], [0053], [0071] – [0075] and [0080] – [0081]; Fig. 2, #27 and #50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control section of Yamazaki in view of Tsunoya to incorporate the teachings of Shin and calculate a backlash value using data from the pressure sensor. The purpose, as stated by Shin, being pressure deviation from the set holding pressure is released, allowing for stabilization and effectively preventing backflow caused by the pressure deviation ([0094]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki in view of Tsunoya and Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Tsunoya further teaches:
wherein the control section is configured to calculate an elapsed change amount of the backlash value by comparing the detection data acquired at a first timing with the detection data acquired at a second timing that is later than the first timing ([0061], [0063], and [0078] – [0079]; Fig. 4, #13).
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki in view of Tsunoya and Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on. Yamazaki further teaches:
wherein the supply control mechanism includes a cylinder connected to the flow path ([0091]; Fig. 13, #81), a plunger disposed in the cylinder ([0091]; Fig. 13, #82), and a drive section configured to drive the plunger ([0091]; Fig. 13, #83),
the control section is configured to execute:
the first operation by controlling the drive section to pull the plunger to suck the plasticization material from the flow path into the cylinder ([0090] – [0095]; Fig. 13, #80 and #500) and
the second operation by controlling the drive section to push the plunger to send out the plasticization material in the cylinder to the flow path ([0090] – [0095]; Fig. 13, #80 and #500), and
the control section is configured to calculate the backlash value based on a time integral value of the detection value during a period of the first operation and a time integral value of the detection value during a period of the second operation. This limitation is taught by the combination of references made in claim 1, which this claim depends on, along with the limitations taught in this claim by Yamazaki.
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki in view of Tsunoya and Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on. Yamazaki further teaches:
wherein the control section is configured to calculate, while changing the operating speed of the supply control mechanism, an operation delay time of the supply control mechanism corresponding to each operating speed based on the detection data and is configured to calculate the backlash value based on a correlation between the operating speed and the operation delay time ([0078] – [0098]).
Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki in view of Tsunoya and Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on. Yamazaki further teaches:
wherein the control section is configured to control an operation of the supply control mechanism based on the calculated backlash value ([0078] – [0095]). The combination of Yamazaki in view of Tsunoya and Shin made above in claim 1 enables the teachings of Yamazaki to teach this limitation as cited.
Regarding claim 7, Yamazaki in view of Tsunoya and Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on. Tsunoya further teaches:
wherein the supply control mechanism and the pressure sensor are supported by different members. Tsunoya is silent as to a support for the pressure sensor, however it teaches the pressure sensor and the supply control mechanism being located at different positions along the flow path, and the figure shows them extending outwards from the flow path (Fig. 1, #11 and #13), therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using a rearrangement of parts, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results or criticality.
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious.
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Regarding claim 8, Yamazaki in view of Tsunoya and Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Yamazaki teaches:
the material supplying device according to claim 1, see the rejection of claim 1 above, and
a stage on which the plasticization material is supplied from the material supplying device and deposited ([0020]; Fig. 1, #300).
Regarding claim 9, Yamazaki in view of Tsunoya and Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Shin teaches:
the material supplying device according to claim 1, see the rejection of claim 1 above, and
a molding die clamping device configured to cause a molding die, which has a cavity into which the plasticization material is supplied from the material supplying device, to open and close ([0097]; Fig. 1, #38). A molding clamping device is an obvious modification for an injection molding device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US-20210114306) in view of Tsunoya (US-20210299959) and Shin (KR20170111089), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nanri (US-20210094211), using the attached original document and translation.
Regarding claim 6, Yamazaki in view of Tsunoya and Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on. Yamazaki further teaches:
wherein the supply control mechanism ([0091]; Fig. 13, #80) includes a cylinder connected to the flow path ([0091]; Fig. 13, #81), a plunger disposed in the cylinder ([0091]; Fig. 13, #82), a drive section that includes a motor configured to drive the plunger ([0091]; Fig. 13, #83), and
a conversion mechanism configured to convert rotational motion of the motor into linear motion of the plunger ([0091]).
Yamazaki in view of Tsunoya and Shin does not teach:
the control section is configured to calculate the backlash value for each occurrence place of backlash based on torque changes of the motor.
However, Nanri, in a similar field of endeavor, a material supplying device, teaches:
the control section is configured to calculate the backlash value for each occurrence place of backlash based on torque changes of the motor ([0006] – [0007], [0038], [0049], and [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control section of Yamazaki in view of Tsunoya and Shin to incorporate the teachings of Nanri and use the torque of the motor to calculate backlash. The purpose, as stated by Nanri, being it is possible to prevent mechanical distortion ([0042]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights