DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 & 6-19 of copending Application No. 18272552 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications describe simulation methods for secondary battery production with checking quality of material produced by an apparatus, obtaining user action and user condition information, determining an operation of the apparatus and executing operation of the apparatus.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-9 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); Claims 10-18 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claim 19 is directed to a computer-readable medium (i.e., manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-19 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. A simulation apparatus for secondary battery production, the simulation apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store at least one instruction; and
at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction stored in the memory to perform operations comprising
the at least one instruction includes instructions for:
executing an apparatus operating unit comprising a 3D degas apparatus related to secondary battery production;
checking quality of a material produced by the 3D degas apparatus;
executing a facility operating unit comprising a plurality of adjustment parameters for determining an operation of the 3D degas apparatus;
obtaining at least one of first user action information obtained through the apparatus operating unit or first user condition information obtained through the facility operating unit;
determining at least one of an operation of the 3D degas apparatus or a self-inspection based on at least one of the first user action information or the first user condition information; and
executing the operation of the 3D degas apparatus.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because user may easily learn how to operate a secondary battery production apparatus through the simulation progressed step by step according to the user's task skill level are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 10 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-8 & 10-19 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2 & 11 recite the operation of the 3D degas apparatus, Claims 3 & 12 recite inspecting the result of the material, Claims 4 & 13 recite determining quality parameters and outputting quality information, Claims 5-6 & 14-15 recite determining defect scenarios and changing operation of the apparatus or quality information, Claims 7 & 16 recite executing a defect scenario, obtaining user actions, correcting the apparatus and correcting quality information, Claims 8 & 17 recite obtaining user action and outputting a defect cause, & Claims 9 & 18 recite outputting guide and action information. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 10, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
1. A simulation apparatus for secondary battery production, the simulation apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store at least one instruction; and
at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction stored in the memory to perform operations comprising
the at least one instruction includes instructions for:
executing an apparatus operating unit comprising a 3D degas apparatus related to secondary battery production;
checking quality of a material produced by the 3D degas apparatus;
executing a facility operating unit comprising a plurality of adjustment parameters for determining an operation of the 3D degas apparatus;
obtaining at least one of first user action information obtained through the apparatus operating unit or first user condition information obtained through the facility operating unit;
determining at least one of an operation of the 3D degas apparatus or a self-inspection based on at least one of the first user action information or the first user condition information; and
executing the operation of the 3D degas apparatus.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the memory, processor; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of executing the operation of an apparatus operating unit comprising a 3D degas apparatus, the Examiner submits that these additional claim limitations amount to an 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 and is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 10 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recites at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the memory, processor; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of executing the operation of an apparatus operating unit comprising a 3D degas apparatus, the Examiner submits that these additional claim limitations amount to an 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 and is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: apparatus operating unit, facility operating unit in claims 1-19.
Accordingly, based on Applicant's original specification, each of the above units
is considered to be software programs or images/videos that a computing device is displaying (see [66] of the specification, "[i]n the present disclosure, the 'facility
operating unit,' apparatus operating unit,' are software programs included in the simulation apparatus", emphasis added).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Prior Art
Considering each of the current claims as a whole, the prior art does not teach or
suggest the claimed apparatus/method.
(i) Choquet (US 2006/0136183) is a pertinent reference to the current claims. In
particular, quite similar to the current claims (e.g., see claim 1), Choquet is directed to a computer-based simulation apparatus/method; wherein the system trains a user, while displaying one or more virtual models/apparatus, the proper procedures to perform a task(s) and/or operate an apparatus-such as, a welding machine ([0071]; [0076]); and furthermore, based on one or more inputs that the user is providing, the system generates one or more updated scenarios related to the task being simulated, including images/animations regarding one or more of: a weld bead, assembled metals, etc. ([0084]; [0091] to [0097]; [0101]).
However, Choquet is specific to welding training; and thus, Choquet does not
appear to teach or suggest the claimed simulation directed to the secondary battery
production; and particularly, checking the quality of material of a 3D degas apparatus and determining an adjustment for the operation of the degas apparatus.
(ii) Ogawa (US 2015/0268661) is also a pertinent reference to the current claims. Ogawa teaches a computer-based simulation system that helps a user to operate a
virtual machine that represents (e.g., a replica of) a physical machine ([0011]; [0038]). In this regard, the simulation system incorporates input/output devices, including (a) a
display for presenting visual data, (b) one or more input controls for allowing the user to
provide input(s) for controlling the virtual machine ([0047]; [0051]); and furthermore,
based on one or more inputs that the use is providing, the system generates one or more relevant virtual scenarios-such as, images that illustrate the movements of one or more parts of the virtual machine, etc., which demonstrates to the user whether there
are some interferences between one or more structures of the machine, etc. ([0057] to
[0062]). Of course, such simulation scenario helps the user to learn and understand the
operation of the relevant physical machine.
However, similar to the point made with respect Choquet above, Ogawa also
does not teach or suggest the claimed simulation directed to the secondary battery production; and checking the quality of material of a 3D degas apparatus and determining an adjustment for the operation of the degas apparatus.
(iii) Dupont (US 2003/0215779) is also a relevant reference, which is directed to a computer-based simulation system/method for training a user regarding an installation
and/or repairing of an apparatus; namely, an apparatus in the form of a
telecommunication equipment ([0010] to [0012]; [0031]). Accordingly, the simulation
system generates to the user one or more virtual scenarios regarding tasks related to
repairing and/or installing the equipment above; and thus, the user performs, while
using one or more input units of the simulation system, one or more virtual repairing
and/or installation tasks-such as, connecting two cables and testing the connection of
the cables, etc. ([0068] to [0070]).
However, Dupont also fails to teach or suggest the claimed simulation directed
to the secondary battery production; and more specifically, checking the quality of material of a 3D degas apparatus and determining an adjustment for the operation of the degas apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights