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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 15 are amended.
Claims 3, 11, and 13-14 are canceled.
Claim 22 is new.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 15-22 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “a first simulation facility” and “a second simulation facility”, however while applicant cites Par. 50, 76, 82, 84, 92-93, 126, and 129, upon examiners review of the specification, only a single simulation facility appears to be described. Thus, there is not support for first and second simulation facilities performing the respective claimed functions.
Claim 22 recites “a second real manufacturing method to provide a prediction on a second product quality of a second manufactured product” however while applicant cites Par. 50, 76, 82, 84, 92-93, 126, and 129, upon examiners review of the specification, only a single manufacturing method appears to be described used in the method.
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 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 15-22 belong to statutory a category.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 recite(s) “a method for determining a product quality that results from a manufacturing method”, “performing a simulative determination, by a first simulation facility prior to the real manufacturing method, of a first manufacturing state variable of multiple manufacturing state variables as a function of a scattering manufacturing state variable of the multiple manufacturing state variables, wherein the scattering manufacturing state variable is a manufacturing state variable of the real manufacturing method, and wherein the scattering manufacturing state variable deviates from a mean value, therein providing an indication of a deviation in a quality parameter of the manufactured product;”, “executing a simulative detection, by a second simulative detection facility comprising a virtual sensor during the manufacturing of the product, of a third manufacturing state variable that cannot be detected by a physical sensor in a sensory manner of the multiple manufacturing state variables, wherein the simulative detection is executed as a function of the second manufacturing state variable that is detected by the physical sensor in the sensory manner of the multiple manufacturing state variables; carrying out an associative determination of the product quality, by a determination facility via performing a machine learning method, using (1) the first manufacturing state variable obtained through the simulative determination, (2) the second manufacturing state variable obtained through the sensory detection, and (3) the third manufacturing state variable obtained via the simulative detection, wherein the multiple manufacturing state variables are used as input variables for the associative determination, and wherein through the associative determination, a total of all determined or recorded manufacturing state variables are connected or linked to the product quality of the manufactured product based on a predictive model;” and “identifying and providing a manufacturing deviation in the manufactured product using providing the predictive model without a direct quality check of the manufactured product being conducted” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes see applicant’s specification, for example pages 7, 17-20, 24. Examiner notes in regards to the “a simulative detection facility” applicant’s specification describes it as a "virtual sensor" (page 24) and “detected in a sensory manner of the manufacturing state variables as a function of the manufacturing state variable” (page 7) which amounts to mathematical concepts. Further “conducting a sensory detection of one manufacturing state variable of the multiple manufacturing state variables” could be understood as methods of organizing human activity, as a person could reasonably measure and input the manufacturing state variables.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “conducting a sensory detection, by a sensor of a detection facility during the manufacturing of the product, of a second manufacturing state variable of the multiple manufacturing state variables, identifying and providing a manufacturing deviation in the manufactured product using;” is considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The elements of “a first simulation facility”, “a second simulation facility”, “a detection facility”, and “a determination facility” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “the method comprising: manufacturing a product via a real manufacturing method to provide a manufactured product;” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “conducting a sensory detection, by a sensor of a detection facility during the manufacturing of the product, of a second manufacturing state variable of the multiple manufacturing state variables, identifying and providing a manufacturing deviation in the manufactured product using;” is considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and are further considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality (as noted above, the “a sensory detection” could be considered a human activity) see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). The elements of “a first simulation facility”, “a second simulation facility”, “a detection facility”, and “a determination facility” are considered to be are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(ii). The elements of “the method comprising: manufacturing a product via a real manufacturing method to provide a manufactured product;” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record).
Claims 2, 4-10, 12, 15-20 and 22 are considered to further describe the abstract ideas above.
Claim 21 is not integrated into a practical application and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “wherein the real manufacturing method is performed for a first time” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record).
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 15-22 are distinguished over the prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In claim 1, the claim differs from the closest prior arts of record, US 6281465 B1 and US 20200334921 A1, in that it fails to anticipate or render obvious “performing a simulative determination, by a first simulation facility prior to the real manufacturing method, of a first manufacturing state variable of multiple manufacturing state variables as a function of a scattering manufacturing state variable of the multiple manufacturing state variables, wherein the scattering manufacturing state variable is a manufacturing state variable of the real manufacturing method, and wherein the scattering manufacturing state variable deviates from a mean value, therein providing an indication of a deviation in a quality parameter of the manufactured product;”, “executing a simulative detection, by a second simulation facility comprising a virtual sensor during the manufacturing of the product, of a third manufacturing state variable that cannot be detected by a physical sensor in a sensory manner of the multiple manufacturing state variables, wherein the simulative detection is executed as a function of the second manufacturing state variable that is detected by the physical sensor in the sensory manner of the multiple manufacturing state variables;” and “performing a machine learning method, using: (1) the first manufacturing state variable obtained through the simulative determination, (2) the second manufacturing state variable obtained through the sensory detection, and (3) the third manufacturing state variable obtained via the simulative detection, wherein the multiple manufacturing state variables are used as input variables for the associative determination, and wherein through the associative determination, a total of all determined or recorded manufacturing state variables are connected or linked to the product quality of the manufactured product based on a predictive model;” in combination with all the other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s 101 arguments on pages 7-10, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding an improved predictive model, per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Thus, the claims are not considered to be an improvement. Further, the claims as recited are not applied to the manufacturing method, as it simply outputs a manufacturing deviation without any additional steps based on said output that effect the manufacturing processes. Further the claims do not recite any steps that “control” the physical manufacturing process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8866625 B2, System And Method For The Aggregation And Communicating Of Process Metadata Of Heterogeneous Production Process Chains; US 20090299882 A1, CONVERTING ASSETS FOR REUSE DURING MANUFACTURING; US 20080154417 A1, Manufactured Product Configuration.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights