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 .
2. The following office action is a Final Office Action in response to the communications received on 01/20/2026.
Currently, claim 21 has been amended; and therefore, claims 1-21 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 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, etc., is presented to a user; wherein an input(s) and/or information regarding the user is also received; and wherein one or more relevant scenarios are pressed to the user (e.g., presenting 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 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., “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 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, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, 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 01/20/2026). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, regarding Applicant’s remark presented as part of the footnote, Applicant is asserting that “[t]he Office Action inserts certain language in brackets into the claims, Applicant generally objects to the insertion of such language to the extent such language misrepresents or misconstrues the express claim language. Office Action at 2” (emphasis added).
However, none of the terms under Prong One misrepresents or misconstrues any of the limitations that the claims are reciting. Instead, the terms are intended to provide merely contextual meaning consistent with the limitations that the claims are reciting. For instance, claim 1 recites, “executing an apparatus operating unit comprising 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” (see lines 7-8 of claim 1). Thus, when identifying the part that recites the abstract idea, the remark under Prong One states, “[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” (see above).
The above indicates that the term, “[present pictorial representation of]”, does not misrepresent or misconstrue the claimed limitation being identified; rather, it is pointing out what is being shown to the user as part of the simulation scenario. In fact, the interpretation above is also consistent with the description in the speciation since the images, videos and/or animation, which the disclosed computer system is displaying to the user regarding the 3D DSF&EOL, are themselves pictorial representations (e.g., see [0116] and [0117] of the specification; also see FIG 6).
Accordingly, as already pointed out above, none of the terms used as part of the analysis under Prong One of Step 2A is misrepresenting or misconstruing any of the limitations that the claims are reciting. Instead, the terms are intended to provide merely contextual meanings that are consistent with the limitations that the claims are reciting.
Secondly, while referring to the Office’s eligibility analysis presented under Prong One of Step 2A, Applicant is asserting that “[a]lthough the claimed system and methods may be used to ‘teach,’ the claims are not so directed as the Office Action contends. Instead, Applicant directs the Examiner to Example 38 . . . Example 38 claims techniques for simulating an Analog Audio Mixer. In Example 38, the claims were found not to recite a judicial exception: mathematical relationship, mental process, or a method of organizing human activity and were thus eligible under Prong 2A ” (emphasis added). Applicant has also presented a table, which supposedly compares the limitations of Example 38 with that of current claim 8 (see pages 11 to 12 of the current argument).
However, none of the current claims is even remotely analogous to the claim of Example 38. For instance, Example 38 has nothing to do with presenting a simulation scenario—namely a training video/animation—intended to evaluate a user’s skill at performing a task (e.g., displaying to the user an interactive training video/animation that relates to a 3D virtual apparatus; and furthermore, modifying the video/animation representing the 3D virtual apparatus based on the accuracy/inaccuracy of the inputs that the user is providing during the training process, etc.). Instead, the simulation implied per Example 38 relates to an operational commuter-generated audio mixer, which attempts to closely replicate the sound quality of an actual analog audio mixer. Accordingly, per the claim of Example 38, the simulation of the analog audio mixer involves modeling an analog circuit for the audio mixer, wherein the modeling process includes specifying various attributes (e.g., location, value, etc.) for each circuit element of the analog circuit; and subsequently, a digital representation of the analog circuit is simulated based on processing the various attributes. Of course, one may use the simulated analog audio mixer above for high-fidelity audio reproduction (e.g., listening to music in its analog form).
The observation above confirms that Example 38 is not even remotely relevant to any of the current claims. In particular, unlike the current claims, Example 38 is not directed to a training simulation (e.g., a video and/or an animation that represents an apparatus and/or a task), which one uses to (i) educate a user regarding how to perform a given task, and/or (ii) evaluate the skill of the user in performing the given task, etc. Consequently, Applicant’s assertions regarding the alleged similarities between the current claims and Example 38, including the table (see pages 11 and 12 of the current argument) that Applicant incorporated in further attempt to substantiate the alleged similarity, are all not persuasive.
Of course, the same is true regarding Applicant’s subsequent conclusory assertions, “Like in Example 38, the simulation method of Applicant's Claim 8 allows for a user to learn and refine the parameters of the simulation . . . the Office's explanation of Example 38: ‘[t]he model is then simulated using a bilinear transformation . . . If the sound quality is not acceptable to the user, the user can generate new randomized working values for all the circuit elements and simulate another digital representation of the analog 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 . . . [89] (‘According to an embodiment, the quality determination unit 220 may determine or extract one or more quality parameters . . . [90] (‘According to an embodiment, a defect scenario related to a malfunction of the 3D model apparatus may occur . . . [92] (‘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.’)” (emphasis added).
It is evident from Applicant’s assertions above that Applicant is mistaking the term “simulation”, as used per Example 38, for a training simulation (i.e., a training video and/or animation similar to what Applicant’s claimed—and disclosed—system/method is providing). In contrast, the term “simulation”, as applied to the analog audio mixer being simulated per Example 38, is referring to an operational computer-generated (digital) analog audio mixer. It is again important to note the critical issue here. In particular, unlike Applicant’s claimed—and disclosed—system/method, the digital representation of the analog audio mixer—per Example 38—is an operational one (e.g., allows one to reproduce high-fidelity audio—such as music—by replicating the sound quality of an analog audio mixer). In contrast, none of Applicant’s claimed—and disclosed—simulated devices is even operational, much less performing an actual operation that a physical device is performing. This is because each of the simulated devices is merely a video and/or animation that mimics a corresponding physical device and/or its operations. In particular, except for helping the user to be familiar with a task to be performed in the real-world, none of the simulations provides any real-world or tangible operation. Thus, none of Applicant’s assertions, including the various sections that Applicant cited from the specification, is going to change the fact above. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Thirdly, unlike Applicant’s incorrect assertion, Example 38 is not directed to teaching—such as, allowing “a user to learn and refine the parameters of the simulation” (emphasis added). Instead, the user is modifying—or refining—the parameters if the sound quality, which the computer-generated analog audio mixer is producing, is not acceptable to the user (e.g., the audio mixer is producing a poor-quality sound, which the user does not like). This is analogous to one testing different types of audio mixers prior to choosing the one with the best audio quality. Consequently, Applicant’s assessment regarding Example 38 is inaccurate.
Nevertheless, even assuming arguendo that Example 38 allows “a user to learn and refine the parameters of the simulation”, such assumption still does not remedy the irreconcilable gap pointed out above. In particular, the analog audio mixer being
simulated per Example 38 is essentially an operational computer-generated audio mixer. In contrast, none of the devices/operations being simulated per Applicant’s claimed—and disclosed—system/method is operational or functional. Instead, the simulation is merely an interactive video and/or animation intended to demonstrate to a user (e.g., a student or a worker) what a given device looks like and/or how the given device operates based on inputs received from the user, etc. Accordingly, regardless of whether one assumes that Example 38 allows “a user to learn and refine the parameters of the simulation”, Example 38 is still not even remotely analogous to any of Applicant’s claimed—or disclosed—simulations. Consequently, Applicant’s conclusory assertion regarding Example 38, “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. Accordingly, for at least the above reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the analysis under Prong One of Step 2A is flawed and deficient” (emphasis added), is still irrelevant to demonstrate whether any of the current claims is patent-eligible per section §101 (i.e., the Alice/Mayo framework).
Thus, at least for the reasons discussed above, the Office concludes that none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, implements an inventive concept that amount s to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this final office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 filled 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. 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