DETAILED ACTION
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/02/2026 has been entered.
3. Currently claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-21 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong One:
The current claims recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1, 11 and 21 as representative claims, the following limitations recite an abstract idea:
[present pictorial representation of] 3D Double Side Folding and End Of Line (DSF&EOL) related to secondary battery and quality information of a material produced by the 3D DSF&EOL;
[present] a plurality of adjustment parameters for the 3D DSF&EOL;
obtain at least one of first user action information or first user condition information;
determine [state] of the 3D DSF&EOL based on at least one of the obtained first user action information or first user condition information; and
[illustrate] double-folding a side wing of a cell related to the 3D DSF&EOL and check characteristics based on the determined [state], etc.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior (e.g., teaching), wherein a user is presented with a simulation scenario regarding one or more tasks, including 3D Double Side Folding and End Of Line (DSF&EOL) related to secondary battery production and quality information of a material related to secondary battery production; and furthermore, based on one or more inputs received from the user, one or more relevant scenarios (e.g., images, videos, etc.) are pressed to the user (e.g., a scenario regarding double-folding a side wing of a cell related to the 3D DSF&EOL, etc.).
Similarly, given the limitations that recite the process of determining the simulated operation/state of the 3D DSF&EOL based on a plurality of adjustment parameters, and/or determining the simulated operation/state of the 3D DSF&EOL based on at least one of the first user action information or first user condition information, etc., the current claims also correspond to a mental process; such as, an evaluation, an observation and/or a judgment process, etc.
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong Two:
The claim(s) recite additional element(s), wherein a computer system, which executes one or more algorithms, is utilized to facilitate the recited functions/steps regarding: generating a simulation scenario regarding a task that relates to the production of secondary battery production (e.g., “executing an apparatus operating unit comprising a model for 3D Double Side Folding and End Of Line (DSF&EOL) related to secondary battery production and quality information of a material produced by the 3D DSF&EOL; executing a facility operating unit comprising a plurality of adjustment parameters for determining an operation of the 3D DSF&EOL”); receiving and analyzing input or information related to the user (e.g., “obtaining at least one of first user action information obtained through the apparatus operating unit and-or first user condition information obtained through the facility operating unit; determining an operation of the 3D DSF&EOL based on at least one of the obtained first user action information and-or first user condition information”); generating one or more relevant results/scenarios based on the analysis above (e.g., “simulating, using the model, double-folding a side wing of a cell related to the 3D DSF&EOL and checking characteristics based on the determined operation”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions.
Accordingly, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole (e.g., see the discussion under Prong Two above regarding such consideration of the claim as a whole), none of the claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is worth noting that the process of utilizing the conventional computer and/or network technology to provide one or more simulation/training to a user(s), including the process of generating a virtual apparatus that represents a physical apparatus that the user operates; and further simulating one or more tasks/operations scenarios based on input(s) that the user is providing, etc., is directed to a well-understood, routine or conventional activity in the art (e.g., see US 2006/0136183; US 2003/0215779, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-10 and 12-20). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element(s) utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 07/02/2026). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, while summarizing Applicant’s disagreement regarding the Office’s findings presented in the previous office action, Applicant asserts that “the claims do not recite a mental process. The claims require specific technical operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind: executing a model for 3D DSF&EOL using apparatus operating units, executing facility operating units for determining an operation of the 3D DSF&EOL, obtaining a user input through these specific units, and simulating double-folding operations on cell side wings and checking characteristics. These are computer-implemented simulation operations tied to models for specific industrial equipment (DSF&EOL for secondary battery production) . . . Example 37 Claim 2 from the USPTO guidance is instructive. In that example, the claim was found not to recite a mental process because ‘the 'determining step' now requires action by a processor that cannot be practically applied in the mind.’ . . . Similarly here, the claimed steps of executing apparatus operating units comprising a model for 3D DSF&EOL, determining operations of the 3D DSF&EOL based on user inputs through specific operating units, and simulating double-folding a side wing of a cell and checking characteristics are not practically performed in the human mind” (emphasis added).
However, Applicant still fails to properly apply the inquiry under Prong One of Step 2A. It is once again worth noting that the inquiry under Prong One does not require one to consider any computer elements; rather, Prong One requires one to consider only the limitations that recite the judicial exception (again see MPEP 2106.07(a)). Thus, the claimed simulation apparatus, which is a computer system (e.g., a computer that comprises a memory, a processor, etc.), is not part of the abstract idea. Instead, the information it is presenting to the user (e.g., the images and/or animations that it is presenting), which is intended to teach/train the user how to perform one or more tasks, corresponds to the abstract idea. Accordingly, when properly applying Prong One of Step 2A, a human—such as a teacher—can mentally (and/or using a pen and paper) perform the limitations that recite the abstract idea. This is because the teacher can mentally (and/or using a pen and paper) outline one or more textual and/or pictorial elements that are useful to teach/train a user regarding a task(s), wherein each pictorial element may represent a corresponding real-world item (e.g., a household or a factory tool, equipment, etc.). Of course, the teacher can also outline one or more training strategies—such as:
(i) showing the user one or more pictures/sketches, each sketch representing a particular state of a corresponding real-world object (e.g., a picture depicting a particular state of an apparatus operating unit that comprises a 3D DSF&EOL related to secondary battery production, etc.),
(ii) requesting the user (e.g., a verbal and/or a written request) to identify an operational issue/defect (if any) that the sketch is signifying, including a solution/adjustment (if any) to resolve the issue (e.g., “a plurality of adjustment parameters for determining an operation of the 3D DSF&EOL”),
(iii) collecting and analyzing the response(s) of the user (e.g., “obtaining at least one of first user action information” or “first user condition information”; and subsequently, “determining an operation of the 3D DSF&EOL based on at least one of the obtained first user action information or first user condition information”),
(iv) showing the user a subsequent sketch, which represents a modified state of the apparatus, based on the response(s) received from the user (e.g., “double-folding a side wing of a cell related to the 3D DSF&EOL and checking characteristics based on the determined operation”), etc.
The observation above confirms that the current claims recite an abstract idea; such as, a mental process. Consequently, Applicant’s conclusory assertion, “the claims do not recite a mental process”, is not persuasive.
Note also that Applicant’s assumptions regarding the alleged “specific technical operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind” are also not relevant. This is because neither the claims nor the specification involves the actual equipment for secondary battery production, much less the “specific technical operations” that Applicant is alleging. Instead, the claimed (and also the disclosed) system/method is presenting merely pictorial representation of one or more devices in the form of images and/or animations; and the scenes in the images/animations are modified based on one or more inputs received from the user. Of course, the specification already confirms the fact above (e.g., see the original specification: [0066], [0070], etc.).
In addition, unlike Applicant’s assertion, none of the current claims recites any limitation—or a combination of limitations—that is analogous to Claim 2 of Example 37 (hereinafter Claim 2*). In this regard, Applicant appears to misconstrue the analysis presented regarding Claim 2*. It is worth noting that Claim 2* is referring to the process of tracking computer-app parameters, namely the amount of memory space allocated to each computer app of a plurality of computer apps. In particular, based on the evaluation of each of the plurality of computer-app parameters (i.e., a computer-app parameter that represents the amount of memory space allocated to the computer app), which the computer is tracking in its memory over a predetermined period of time, the computer automatically configures a feature of the computer—namely, the computer’s GUI, by rearranging a plurality of computer-app icons that are linked to the computer apps (i.e., it automatically moves the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon based on the determined amount of use).
It is evident from the observation above that Claim 2* is determining, in response to a user input that specifies a particular condition, a computational resource that the system allotted (i.e., the amount of memory space allocated) to actual computer features—namely, computer apps installed on the computer; and subsequently, the processor automatically reconfigures a feature—namely the GUI—of the computer (i.e., automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use that the system spent). Given the facts above, Claim 2* does not recite an abstract idea.
In contrast, the current claims are determining, based on an input(s) received from the user, the subsequent pictorial scenario required to be presented to the user; and thus, the above does constitute a feature—or a combination of features—that can practically be performed in the human mind. In fact, unlike Claim 2*, Applicant’s claimed system/method does not even contemplate a process that tracks a computational resource (if any) that the processor is allocating to a feature of the computer, much less a process that automatically configures a feature of the computer based on such tracking. Consequently, Applicant’s attempt to challenge the Office’s finding, while misapplying Claim 2 of Example 37, is also not persuasive.
Applicant is also asserting that “the claims are not directed to ‘teaching’ as a method of organizing human activity. The claims do not recite teaching or training as method steps. Rather, the claims recite specific technical simulation operations. That a simulation may be used for training does not mean the claims are directed to teaching. The claims recite what the simulation apparatus does, not the abstract concept of teaching” (emphasis added).
However, unlike Applicant’s new theory, the whole purpose of the simulation itself, including the features that the claims are reciting, are for training the user. For instance, the claimed simulation apparatus, which is merely a computer, first displays to the user a pictorial scenario(s) that represents the state of a device(s) and/or a material(s) typically used in secondary battery production (e.g., “executing an apparatus operating unit comprising a model for 3D Double Side Folding and End Of Line . . . related to secondary battery production and quality information of a material produced by the 3D DSF&EOL; executing a facility operating unit comprising a plurality of adjustment parameters for determining an operation of the 3D DSF&EOL”); and subsequently, the computer: (a) collects one or more inputs from the user (e.g., “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”), (b) analyzes the user’s inputs (e.g., “determining an operation of the 3D DSF&EOL based on at least one of the obtained first user action information or first user condition information”); and (c) presents to the user the results in terms of a modified image/animation (e.g., “simulating using the model, double-folding a side wing of a cell related to the 3D DSF&EOL and checking characteristics based on the determined operation”).
Accordingly, such process of presenting, based on the particular input received from the user, a modified image/animation that represents the modified state of the device and/or the material, is effectively teaching the user regarding the effect that one or more inputs have on the state of the device and/or material. In this regard, the computer is being used—merely as a tool—to facilitate the presentation of the training above. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments in this regard are also not persuasive.
Secondly, while failing to properly construe the Offices analysis, Applicant is asserting that “the Office Action's characterization misconstrues the claim language. The Office Action inserts bracketed language like ‘[present pictorial representation of]’ and ‘[illustrate]’ that does not appear in the claims. The claims recite ‘executing’ apparatus operating units and ‘simulating using the model double-folding a side wing of a cell’—these are active simulation operations, not mere presentation or illustration. As described in the specification, the 3D model apparatus ‘is a virtual apparatus that implements actual secondary battery production equipment, which may operate in a way that images, videos, or animations of the virtual apparatus are executed, modified, and/or corrected based on the information input by a user’ . . . at [0066]. These are computational simulation operations that may result in pictorial presentations, but the underlying models and simulations are not mere pictorial presentations” (emphasis added).
However, quite similar to the point made in the previous office action, none of the Office’s analysis misconstrues any of the claims. In particular, regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the terms “[present pictorial representation]”, “[illustrate]”, etc., are intended to provide merely contextual meaning consistent with the limitations that the claims are reciting. So far, except for the subjective assumptions, Applicant fails to provide any proper rationale that refutes the Office’s position above. Moreover, even the section that Applicant cited from the specification ([0066] of the specification) confirms the Office’s position. This is because the specification is confirming the fact that the 3D model is a “virtual apparatus”, which may operate in the form of “images, videos or animations” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the disclosed and claimed simulation process is indeed presenting a “pictorial representation” of one or more devices/materials, and each of the one or more “pictorial representation” is modified based on input received from the user in order to “illustrate” to the user the effect of his/her inputs, etc. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are still not persuasive.
Applicant has also attempted to challenge the Office’s previous response; namely, the previous response directed to Applicant’s previous attempt to rely on Example 38. In particular, while drafting a table (see pages 12 and 13 of the current argument), which supposedly compares the features of Example 38 with that of current claim 11, Applicant is asserting that “Like in Example 38, the simulation method of Applicant's Claim 11 allows for a user to learn and refine the parameters of the simulation. According to the Office's explanation of Example 38: ‘[t]he model is then simulated using a bilinear transformation to create a digital representation of the analog circuit. This digital representation is then presented to the user through a graphical user interface as an operational digital audio mixer . . . the claimed invention allows for similar benefits. See Applicant's Specification at [88] ("As described above, when the operation of the 3D model apparatus is executed based on the user condition information and/or the user action information, the quality determination unit 220 may determine or generate quality information related to the quality of a material produced by the operation of the 3D model apparatus.’) . . . (‘According to an embodiment, when a defect scenario occurs, the user may change the adjustment parameter or the settings of the 3D model apparatus to resolve the occurred defect scenario.’) . . . as Example 38 makes clear, although a simulation may be used to learn or ‘teach,’ the simulation itself does not claim ‘teaching’ and is thus not directed to a method of organizing human activity” (emphasis added).
However, except for the attempt made to compare the features of Example 38 with that of current claim 11, including the alleged similar benefits that the two implementations above are providing to the user (see pages 13 to 14 of the current argument), Applicant once again fails to notice the fundamental eligibility distinction between Example 38 and the current claimed (or disclosed) apparatus/method. In particular, as already pointed out in the previous office action, Example 38 is directed to an operational commuter-generated audio mixer, which closely replicates the sound quality of an analog audio mixer. This means, Example 38 is not even referring to a simulation/model, which the user uses to test some features of an audio mixer, before the user builds an analog audio mixer. It is important to appreciate this critical fact. In contrast, the current claims—including the disclosure as a whole—are directed to the process of presenting training materials to a user, wherein the training materials are presented to the user in the form of interactive image/video-based simulation. Thus, regardless of the alleged similarities, which Applicant is attempting to portray between Example 38 and any of the current calms, none of the current claims is even remotely relevant to Example 38 in terms of patent-eligibility. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are still not persuasive.
In addition, except for making a conclusory assertion, “the claims integrate any such idea into a practical application through specific technical simulation operations tied to secondary battery production equipment”, Applicant fails to show a claimed/disclosed element (if any)—or a combination of claimed/disclosed elements (if any)—that supposedly integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. For instance, except for declaring the presence of “specific technical simulation operations”, which are assumed to be tied to “secondary battery production equipment”, Applicant fails to demonstrate a technological feature (if any) that is considered to be an advance over the existing computer/network technology.
Note that the story/content of the simulation video/animation may be about secondary battery production equipment. However, this does not necessarily imply that the claimed (or the disclosed) apparatus/method is implementing “specific technical simulation operations”, as Applicant is alleging. In fact, the original specification already confirms that the user is interacting with the simulation video using basic input/output devices—such as, a computer-mouse, keyboard, etc. (see [0170]). Accordingly, Applicant’s new label, “specific technical simulation operations”, has nothing to do with a technological improvement (if any) that the claimed (or the originally disclosed) apparatus/method is implementing.
It is worth noting that the claimed (and the disclosed) apparatus/method is relying on a computer-based system to provide interactive training scenarios to the user. Thus, an integration (if any) of the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application is shown if the claims are implementing an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing computer/network technology. So far, Applicant fails to demonstrate a technological improvement (if any) that the claimed (or the disclosed) apparatus/method is implementing.
Similarly, given the generic and conventional arrangement of the claimed additional elements, none of the current claims—when considered as a whole—is directed to an inventive concept that amounts to “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea.
Thus, at least for the reasons discussed above, the Office concludes that the current claims fail to comply with section §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached from 7:00 AM - 3:00 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, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights