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 .
Amendments
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on June 28, 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 14, 17, and 19 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
No new claims have been added.
The objections and rejections from the prior correspondence that are not restated herein are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites “processour”. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 28, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“The claims are not directed merely to generating an estimation model or calculating a model evaluation. Rather, the claims use model evaluations generated from multiple estimation models to perform a comparative evaluation of upstream processes across multiple manufacturers. Further, the claims do so while withholding the underlying production parameters from the evaluation apparatus. The claimed system therefore uses machine-learning outputs in a specific manner to enable a determination that cannot be made from any individual model alone.
Nor can the claims reasonably be characterized as a mental process. The claims require a plurality of learning apparatuses respectively provided to a plurality of manufacturers, generation of estimation models using local production parameters and downstream quality evaluations, calculation of model evaluations representing influence degrees of production parameters on downstream quality, transmission of those model evaluations without transmitting the production parameters themselves, and comparison of model evaluations received from multiple learning apparatuses. Such operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The comparative evaluation of upstream processes refers to the limitation reciting evaluating at least one upstream process of the supply chain by comparing model evaluations received from a plurality of learning apparatuses respectively provided to a plurality of manufacturers. This limitation recites a mental process of evaluating by comparing model evaluations, which can be reasonably performed in the human mind; the origin of the model evaluations does not impede the limitation from being performed in the mind. The additional elements recited in the claim include the sending/receiving step without transmitting/receiving the at least one production parameter itself, the units that use processors to carry out the various steps, and that the supply chain to which the method is being applied comprises at least two manufacturers. The additional limitations, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as shown in the 101 rejections below.
Applicant further argues:
“The claims are also consistent with USPTO eligibility guidance, including the reasoning of Example 42. The claims do not merely collect and analyze information for its own sake. Rather, they use machine-learning models generated at different points in a supply chain and use model evaluations derived from those models to perform comparative evaluation of upstream processes across multiple manufacturers. In this way, the claims improve how machine-learning models are evaluated and used within a distributed supply-chain environment.
The Examiner characterizes the claims as reciting conventional receiving, learning, evaluating, and sending operations performed by generic processors. However, the claims as amended are not directed to those operations in isolation. The claims require: (i) generating an estimation model using local production parameters and downstream quality evaluations; (ii) calculating a model evaluation that "represents an influence degree of the at least one production parameter on the quality evaluation of the downstream produced object"; (iii) sending the model evaluation "without transmitting the at least one production parameter itself'; and (iv) evaluating upstream processes "by comparing model evaluations received from a plurality of learning apparatuses respectively provided to a plurality of manufacturers." Considered as an ordered combination, these limitations define a specific use of multiple machine-learning models to perform comparative evaluation across a supply chain.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement cannot be provided by the abstract idea (i.e., comparative evaluation of upstream processes across multiple manufacturers) and must come from the additional elements recited in the claims. Per specification paragraph [0041], the evaluation apparatus 110 can evaluate each process by using the model evaluation received from each learning apparatus without receiving the production parameter used in each learning apparatus, which provides an environment where each manufacturer can improve the target process which affects the quality of the final produced object. This is a business benefit rather than a technological improvement. Further, specification paragraph [0042] states: “The learning apparatus 100 may be a computer such as a PC (personal computer), a workstation, a server computer or a general-purpose computer installed in a corresponding manufacturer 20, may be a portable computer such as a tablet computer or a smartphone, or may be a computer system in which a plurality of computers are connected. Such a computer system is also a computer in a broad sense.” Therefore, learning apparatus is a generic computer component in which the recited judicial exception is performed.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of the previous office action are hereby withdrawn.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 and 19-21 are directed to a machine or an article of manufacture. Claims 11-18 are directed to a process.
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 14:
2A Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically:
(Claims 1 and 14) generate, through learning, an estimation model […]
(Claim 11) generating […] through learning, an estimation model for […]
[…] estimating the quality evaluation of the downstream produced object from at least one production parameter, by using the at least one production parameter about the production of each of the produced objects of the target process and the quality evaluation of each downstream produced object produced by using each of the produced objects of the target process; (Mathematical concepts – Estimating a quality evaluation using production parameters involves mathematical calculations. Paragraph [0073] of the specification states that the model evaluation can be calculated by using the complexity of the estimation model. The provided examples for the estimation model complexity used to calculate the model evaluation are Rademacher complexity, VC dimension, or generalization error limit, which are all calculated numerical quantities resulting from mathematical calculations. – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
calculate/calculating a model evaluation based on at least one of certainty or complexity of the estimation model, wherein the model evaluation represents an influence degree of the at least one production parameter on the quality evaluation of the downstream produced object; (Mathematical concepts – calculating a model evaluation involves mathematical calculations (see paragraph [0073]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2))
[…] evaluating at least one upstream process of the supply chain by comparing model evaluations received from a plurality of learning apparatuses respectively provided to a plurality of manufacturers; (Mental process – A person can mentally evaluate at least one upstream process by comparing model evaluations received from a plurality of learning apparatuses respectively provided to a plurality of manufacturers – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the claim limitations fall within the mathematical or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
(Claims 1) at least one processor; (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see § MPEP 2106.05(b)(I))
(Claim 1 and 14) a correspondence receiving unit that uses the at least one processor to receive […] (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see § MPEP 2106.05(b)(I))
(Claim 11) receiving, by a learning apparatus, […] (Mere data gathering – Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
(Claim 14) A non-transitory computer readable medium having a learning program recorded thereon, wherein the learning program is executed by a computer having at least one processor to cause the computer to function as: […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
[…] a correspondence between each produced object of a target process which is targeted and a quality evaluation of each downstream produced object produced in a downstream process of the supply chain by using each produced object of the target process; (Mere data gathering – Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
(Claims 1 and 14) a learning processing unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 1 and 14) a calculating unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 11) by the learning apparatus (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 1 and 14) a model evaluation sending unit that uses the at least one processor to send the model evaluation calculated by the calculating unit, without transmitting the at least one production parameter itself, to an evaluation apparatus for (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 11) sending, by the learning apparatus, the calculated model evaluation, without transmitting the at least one production parameter itself, to an evaluation apparatus for […] (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
wherein the upstream process and the downstream process are part of the supply chain that comprises at least two manufacturers to which the learning apparatus is provided. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
(Claims 1) at least one processor; (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see § MPEP 2106.05(b)(I))
(Claim 1 and 14) a correspondence receiving unit that uses the at least one processor to receive […] (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see § MPEP 2106.05(b)(I))
(Claim 11) receiving, by a learning apparatus, […] (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
(Claim 14) A non-transitory computer readable medium having a learning program recorded thereon, wherein the learning program is executed by a computer having at least one processor to cause the computer to function as: […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
[…] a correspondence between each produced object of a target process which is targeted and a quality evaluation of each downstream produced object produced in a downstream process of the supply chain by using each produced object of the target process; (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
(Claims 1 and 14) a learning processing unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 1 and 14) a calculating unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 11) by the learning apparatus (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 1 and 14) a model evaluation sending unit that uses the at least one processor to send the model evaluation calculated by the calculating unit, without transmitting the at least one production parameter itself, to an evaluation apparatus for (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 11) sending, by the learning apparatus, the calculated model evaluation, without transmitting the at least one production parameter itself, to an evaluation apparatus for […] (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
wherein the upstream process and the downstream process are part of the supply chain that comprises at least two manufacturers to which the learning apparatus is provided. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 2, 12, and 15:
2A Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically:
determining that the target process should be improved based on the model evaluation about each of the at least one upstream process of the supply chain. (Mental process – A person can mentally evaluate that a process should be improved based on an evaluation – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
(Claim 2) an improvement request receiving unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 12) wherein the learning apparatus […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 15) wherein the learning program causes the computer to further function as an improvement request receiving unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
[…] receive/receives an improvement request message which is sent by the evaluation apparatus in response to […] (Mere data gathering – Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
(Claim 2) an improvement request receiving unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 12) wherein the learning apparatus […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 15) wherein the learning program causes the computer to further function as an improvement request receiving unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
[…] receive/receives an improvement request message which is sent by the evaluation apparatus in response to […] (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 3, 13, and 16:
2A Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically:
selecting/selects a production parameter to be adjusted among the at least one production parameter in the target process, in response to a reception of the improvement request message. (Mental process – A person can mentally select a parameter to be adjusted in response to a request – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
(Claim 3) a parameter selecting unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 13) wherein the learning apparatus […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 16) wherein the learning program causes the computer to further function as a parameter selecting unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
(Claim 3) a parameter selecting unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 13) wherein the learning apparatus […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 16) wherein the learning program causes the computer to further function as a parameter selecting unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 4:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
estimate a quality evaluation of the downstream produced object produced in the downstream process of the supply chain by using each produced object of the target process in a case of adjusting a production parameter selected by the parameter selecting unit. (Mathematical concepts and/or mental process – Estimating a quality evaluation can involve mathematical calculations (see paragraph [0073]) and/or a person can mentally estimate a quality evaluation using each produced object – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
a quality evaluation estimating unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
a quality evaluation estimating unit that uses the at least one processor to estimate (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 5, 17, and 19:
2A Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically:
generating, for each of at least one upstream process of the supply chain, through learning, the estimation model for estimating a quality evaluation of a downstream produced object from at least one production parameter, by using a quality evaluation of each downstream produced object produced by using the at least one production parameter about the production of each upstream produced object according to the upstream process of the supply chain, and each upstream produced object of the upstream process of the supply chain (Mathematical concepts – Estimating a quality evaluation using production parameters involves mathematical calculations. Paragraph [0073] of the specification states that the model evaluation can be calculated by using the complexity of the estimation model. The provided examples for the estimation model complexity used to calculate the model evaluation are Rademacher complexity, VC dimension, or generalization error limit, which are all calculated numerical quantities resulting from mathematical calculations. – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
[…] evaluate/evaluating […] the at least one upstream process of the supply chain by comparing model evaluations received from a plurality of learning apparatuses respectively provided to a plurality of manufacturers; wherein each of the received model evaluations represents an influence degree of a production parameter on the quality evaluation of the downstream produced object, […] (Mental process – A person can mentally evaluate a process by comparing model evaluations received from a plurality of learning apparatuses respectively provided to a plurality of manufacturers – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the claim limitations fall within the mathematical or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
(Claim 5) a model evaluation receiving unit that uses the at least one processor to (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 17) An evaluation method comprising: receiving, by an evaluation apparatus, […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 19) A non-transitory computer readable medium having an evaluation program recorded thereon, wherein the evaluation program is executed by a computer to cause the computer to function as: a model evaluation receiving unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
[…] receive/receiving a model evaluation which is based on at least one of certainty or complexity of an estimation model, from a learning apparatus for (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
(Claim 17) by the evaluation apparatus, (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 5 and 19) a process evaluation unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
and wherein the evaluation apparatus does not receive the production parameter itself from the plurality of manufacturers; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 5 and 19) wherein the supply chain includes at least two manufacturers. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
(Claims 5) a model evaluation receiving unit that uses the at least one processor to (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 17) An evaluation method comprising: receiving, by an evaluation apparatus, […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 19) A non-transitory computer readable medium having an evaluation program recorded thereon, wherein the evaluation program is executed by a computer to cause the computer to function as: a model evaluation receiving unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
[…] receive/receiving a model evaluation which is based on at least one of certainty or complexity of an estimation model, from a learning apparatus for (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
(Claim 17) by the evaluation apparatus, (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 5 and 19) a process evaluation unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
and wherein the evaluation apparatus does not receive the production parameter itself from the plurality of manufacturers; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
(Claims 5 and 19) wherein the supply chain includes at least two manufacturers. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 6, 18, and 20:
2A Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically:
determine to improve an upstream process of the supply chain, among the at least one upstream process of the supply chain, which is given a model evaluation that is based on the estimation model whose certainty is greater than a standard value or whose complexity is less than a standard value. (Mental process – A person can determine to improve a process by mentally evaluating a model evaluation based on comparing whether an evaluation certainty is greater than a standard value or whose complexity is less than a standard value – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
(Claims 6 and 20) wherein the process evaluation unit uses the at least one processor to (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 18) wherein the evaluation apparatus is configured to (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
(Claims 6 and 20) wherein the process evaluation unit uses the at least one processor to (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 18) wherein the evaluation apparatus is configured to (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 7:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
further comprising a message output unit that uses the at least one processor to output an improvement request message for the upstream process of the supply chain determined to be improved. (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
further comprising a message output unit that uses the at least one processor to output an improvement request message for the upstream process of the supply chain determined to be improved. (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i)- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 8:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
generate a correspondence between each produced object of the at least one upstream process of the supply chain and the quality evaluation of each downstream produced object by using each association acquired by the association acquiring unit; (Mental process – A person can mentally generate a correspondence or with the physical aid of a pen and paper – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
an association acquiring unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
acquire, for each process of the at least one upstream process of the supply chain, an association between each produced object supplied from a process on the upstream side and each produced object of the process which is supplied to the downstream side; (Mere data gathering – Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
a correspondence generating unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
a correspondence sending unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
send the correspondence to the learning apparatus. (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
an association acquiring unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
acquire, for each process of the at least one upstream process of the supply chain, an association between each produced object supplied from a process on the upstream side and each produced object of the process which is supplied to the downstream side; (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
a correspondence generating unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
a correspondence sending unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
send the correspondence to the learning apparatus. (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 9:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
determining whether to start an evaluation of the at least one upstream process of the supply chain by the process evaluation unit, based on a quality evaluation of at least one downstream produced object. (Mental process – A person can mentally determine whether to start an evaluation based on a quality evaluation – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
further comprising a start determination unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
further comprising a start determination unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 10:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
evaluate the at least one upstream process of the supply chain based on the model evaluation about each of the at least one upstream process of the supply chain. (Mental process – A person can mentally evaluate a process based on an evaluation – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the learning apparatus includes at least one learning apparatus having each of at least one upstream process of the supply chain as a target process; and (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
an evaluation apparatus, wherein the evaluation apparatus includes: (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
a model evaluation receiving unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
receive, from the at least one learning apparatus, a model evaluation which is based on at least one of certainty or complexity of the estimation model; and (Mere data gathering – Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
a process evaluation unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the learning apparatus includes at least one learning apparatus having each of at least one upstream process of the supply chain as a target process; and (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
an evaluation apparatus, wherein the evaluation apparatus includes: (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
a model evaluation receiving unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
receive, from the at least one learning apparatus, a model evaluation which is based on at least one of certainty or complexity of the estimation model; and (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
a process evaluation unit that uses the at least one processor to […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 21:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
wherein each of the at least two manufacturers chooses the at least one production parameter without revealing it to any of the other at least two manufacturers. (Mental process – A person can mentally choose one parameter without revealing it to others – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim(s) do not recite any new additional elements that would amount to an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (individually or in combination) or significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alvaro S Laham Bauzo whose telephone number is (571)272-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 11:00 AM | 1:00 PM - 5:30 PM ET.
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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. 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.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2146
/USMAAN SAEED/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights