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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 15, 18 and 22 are amended.
Claims 3, 11, 13-14, and 17 are canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, 15-16, and 18-22 are pending.
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, 15-16, and 18-22 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”, “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 simulative detection 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;” and “separating, by a separation facility, the manufactured product from a supply chain when the predictive model identifies an insufficient product quality, therein providing a separated 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”, “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 simulative detection 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). The elements of “separating, by a separation facility, the manufactured product from a supply chain when the predictive model identifies an insufficient product quality, therein providing a separated product” are considered to be mere instructions to apply an exception and do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” per MPEP 2106.05(f) sections (1), (2), and (3), as per section (1), the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result thus because the additional limitations provide only a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performed the modifications, it is the equivalent to the words “apply it” similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, per section (2), when elements are being used in their ordinary capacity, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they are simply applying the abstract idea on known elements without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea similar to TLI Communications, and per section (3), “a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. See Internet Patents Corporation v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”.
Claims 2, 4-10, 12, 15-16, 19-20 and 22 are considered to further describe the abstract ideas above.
Claim 16 and 18 are 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 they 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 mere instructions to apply an exception and do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” per MPEP 2106.05(f) sections (1), (2), and (3), as per section (1), the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result thus because the additional limitations provide only a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performed the modifications, it is the equivalent to the words “apply it” similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, per section (2), when elements are being used in their ordinary capacity, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they are simply applying the abstract idea on known elements without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea similar to TLI Communications, and per section (3), “a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. See Internet Patents Corporation v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2029 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s 101 arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the new language simply amounts to “apply it” which is not enough to be considered significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11065707 B2, Systems And Methods Supporting Predictive And Preventative Maintenance; US 7324860 B2, Method, Apparatus And Program Storage Device For Providing A Cascading Timeline Of Manufacturing Events Leading To Completion Of A Manufactured Product;
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
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights