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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1-13 are to a machine, claim 14 is to a machine, and claim 15 is to an article of manufacture. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claims contain at least the following bolded limitations (see representative independent claims) that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes:
1. An information processing device that displays information related to manufacturing of a molding product by an injection molding machine, the information processing device comprising: a detector in the injection molding machine configured to detect, for each shot in injection molding, an actual value of a physical quantity obtained in the shot;
one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions thereon, the instructions when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to:
acquire, for each shot in the injection molding, estimated data for the shot based on a molding condition for the shot or the actual value obtained in the shot, the estimated data indicating a result or state associated with the injection molding in the shot;
generate a presentation screen that displays, in parallel, the estimated data and the molding condition or the actual value, in an arrangement in which pieces of data corresponding to the same shot are visually recognizable as being associated with each other; and cause a display to display the presentation screen.
14. An injection molding machine comprising:
an injection unit;
a mold clamping unit;
a detector configured to detect, for each shot in injection molding by the injection unit and the mold clamping unit, an actual value of a physical quantity obtained in the shot;
one or more processors;
a memory storing instructions thereon, the instructions when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to: estimate, for each shot, estimated data for the shot based on a molding condition for the shot or the actual value obtained in the shot, the estimated data indicating a result or state associated with the injection molding in the shot; and generate a presentation screen that displays, in parallel, the estimated data and the molding condition or the actual value, in an arrangement in which pieces of data corresponding to the same shot are visually recognizable as being associated with each other; and a display configured to display the presentation screen.
15. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, the program when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: acquire, from a detector of an injection molding machine including an injection unit and a mold clamping unit, an actual value of a physical quantity obtained in each shot in injection molding by the injection unit and the mold clamping unit;
estimate, for each shot, estimated data for the shot based on a molding condition for the shot or the actual value obtained in the shot, the estimated data indicating a result or state associated with the injection molding in the shot;
generate a presentation screen that displays, in parallel, the estimated data and the molding condition or the actual value, in an arrangement in which pieces of data corresponding to the same shot are visually recognizable as being associated with each other; and display the presentation screen.
The above bolded limitations describe a mental process to acquire or estimate abstract estimated "data" indicating a result or state associated with the injection molding in the shot, where the estimation is based on a molding condition or the actual value obtained in the shot. The performing of an estimation of a value result or state amounts to a mental process to evaluate and analyze data, which can be performed mentally or by pen and a paper by a person. A person can mentally perform an estimation or form a judgment of a result or state of the injection molding by looking at acquired molding condition or actual value obtained in the shot, where the analysis can be as simple as correlating an observed injection molding condition and measured actual value to a known signature indicative of a result or state. The above bolded limitations can also amount to a mathematical concept if the determination of the estimated data requires more complex calculations or formulas. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). Thus the determination of the estimated data amounts to obtaining a calculated output based on the inputs of a molding condition for the shot or the actual value obtained in the shot.
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the recitations of "an information processing device that displays information," "one or more processors," "a memory storing instructions thereon, the instructions when executed the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to…", "cause a display to display…", "a display configured to display…", "a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, the program when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to…", are limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (2) the recitations of "a detector in the injection molding machine configured to detect, for each shot in injection molding, an actual value of a physical quantity obtained in the shot" and "acquire, from a detector of an injection molding machine including an injection unit and a mold clamping unit, an actual value of a physical quantity obtained in each shot in injection molding by the injection unit and the mold clamping unit," amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); (3) the recitations of "related to manufacturing of a molding product by an injection molding machine," and "an injection molding machine comprising: an injection unit; mold clamping unit," amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h); and (4) the recitations to "generate a presentation screen that displays, in parallel, the estimated data and the molding condition or the actual value, in an arrangement in which pieces of data corresponding to the same shot are visually recognizable as being associated with each other" and "display the presentation screen" amount to insignificant post-solution displaying of an output result (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) as tangential activity to the judicial exception.
Next in step 2B, the independent claims are considered to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
The recitations of "an information processing device that displays information," "one or more processors," "a memory storing instructions thereon, the instructions when executed the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to…", "cause a display to display…", "a display configured to display…", "a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, the program when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to…", are all limitations that do not add something significantly more as they amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of generic computer equipment is considered insignificant additional elements. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.07(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94). Selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content, storing and retrieving data from memory) from within a range of well- known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware is not significantly more, (see Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(MPEP 2106.05(a)II last paragraph). The recitations of "a detector in the injection molding machine configured to detect, for each shot in injection molding, an actual value of a physical quantity obtained in the shot" and "acquire, from a detector of an injection molding machine including an injection unit and a mold clamping unit, an actual value of a physical quantity obtained in each shot in injection molding by the injection unit and the mold clamping unit," are limitations that do not amount to significantly more because they describe insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), as input data must be gathered in any case and the data is not gathered using a particular physical measurement arrangement (as the Examiner regards the detector in the injection molding machine as a general placement of a sensor in the object that is measuring from). The recitations of "related to manufacturing of a molding product by an injection molding machine," and "an injection molding machine comprising: an injection unit; mold clamping unit" are limitations that do not add significantly more because they amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h), and do not describe any applied improvement to the physical operation of the injection molding machine or injection unit or molding clamping unit. The recitations to "generate a presentation screen that displays, in parallel, the estimated data and the molding condition or the actual value, in an arrangement in which pieces of data corresponding to the same shot are visually recognizable as being associated with each other" and "display the presentation screen" are limitations that do not add significantly more because they amount to insignificant post-solution displaying of an output result (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The MPEP states that when “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output)”, the limitations can be mere data gathering or data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra- Solution Activity, in particular item (3)). The displaying of information in parallel and with an arrangement in which pieces of data corresponding to the same shot are visually recognizable as being associated with each other, is still just presenting the informational results of the analysis/calculations next to each other (which could equivalently be performed by a person writing down the results in parallel columns or tabular form), without any applied physical improvement to the performance or operations of the injection molding machine or process itself.
Dependent claims 2-10 contain additional limitations that do not provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more as they describe further insignificant data gathering or insignificant post-solution displaying of output results (see MPEP 2106.05(g), or additional abstract idea mathematical calculations. Dependent claim 11-12 describe the estimation of estimated data using an estimation model trained by machine learning, but patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101 (see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025)), as such limitations amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). In other words, just like "using a processor" is not enough to make a claim patent eligible, "using machine learning" or general "training…using training data" is not enough to make a claim patent eligible, no matter how many words go into describing the (generic) machine learning techniques in the claim. Dependent claim 13 describes storing the estimated data in a storage device, which amounts to generic computer limitations that merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (se MPEP 2106.05(f)).
3. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular non-generic physical arrangements for actively obtaining sensor data, or further physical applications using the calculated estimated data and the molding condition or actual value to drive a transformation, change in physical operation, or repair/maintenance of a technology or technical process could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field. An example of a practical application would be using the display of the estimated data to cause a change in a condition setting in a manufacturing process to change how future molding products are manufactured (see support in published specification paragraphs [0013]-[0014]). Otherwise, the claims merely recite using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea calculations and display the results, without any applied improvement to change the operation of the injection molding machine or injection molding itself.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Atsuta (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0173726) fails to anticipate or render obvious an information processing device that displays information related to manufacturing of a molding product by an injection molding machine, the information processing device comprising: acquire, for each shot in the injection molding, estimated data for the shot estimated based on a molding condition for the shot or the actual value obtained in the shot, the estimated data indicating a result or state associated with the injection molding in the shot; generate a presentation screen that displays, in parallel, the estimated data and the molding condition or the actual value, in an arrangement in which pieces of data corresponding to the same shot are visually recognizable as being associated with each other, in combination with the rest of the claims as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Atsuta does not reasonably teach or suggest displaying estimated data on a per-shot basis, let alone displaying the estimated data and molding condition or actual value (per shot) where pieces of data corresponding to the same shot are visually recognizable as being associated with each other.
Similarly, claim 14 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Atsuta (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0173726) fails to anticipate or render obvious an injection molding machine comprising:
estimate, for each shot, estimated data for the shot based on a molding condition for the shot or the actual value obtained in the shot, the estimated data indicating a result or state associated with the injection molding in the shot; and generate a presentation screen that displays, in parallel, the estimated data and the molding condition or the actual value, in an arrangement in which pieces of data corresponding to the same shot are visually recognizable as being associated with each other, in combination with the rest of the claims as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Similarly, claim 15 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Atsuta (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0173726) fails to anticipate or render obvious a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, the program when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: estimate, for each shot, estimated data for the shot based on a molding condition for the shot or the actual value obtained in the shot, the estimated data indicating a result or state associated with the injection molding in the shot; generate a presentation screen that displays, in parallel, the estimated data and the molding condition or the actual value, in an arrangement in which pieces of data corresponding to the same shot are visually recognizable as being associated with each other, in combination with the rest of the claims as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
5. Dependent claims 2-13 depend from claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 1.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks, filed June 17, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-10 and 13-15 and the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 11-12 have been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
7. Applicant argues in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections under Step 2A Prong One (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 6/17/2026, pg. 10 through pg. 11 paragraph 1) that:
PNG
media_image1.png
838
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
360
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
8. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because there is explicit recitation of an abstract idea in the claims in the acquiring or estimating of an "estimated data" value for the shot based on a molding condition for the shot or the actual value obtained in the shot, the estimated data indicating a result or state associated with the injection molding in the shot. The determination of an estimated data value amounts to either a mental process data evaluation or mathematical concept to determine a result or state (data-based information) as output based on the inputs of a molding condition variable and actual value variable. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). Therefore, a mathematical concept can be present in the derivation of an estimated data value based on processing the inputs of a molding condition or actual value obtained in the shot. The additional limitations that the Applicant recites in the argument above have not been identified as part of the abstract idea (see 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections above and in the previous office action dated 2/23/2026 where the detector, injection molding machine, display, etc. are not bolded), as those limitations are analyzed at later Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B. One thing to note is that the operation of the injection molding machine or the computer/display is not merely based on or involves the abstract idea because the abstract idea determination of the estimated value is not used to drive or control the operation of the injection molding machine or display for an improvement to the technology itself. Rather the injection molding machine is merely the general environment upon which the abstract idea takes place and amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the display is merely displaying the results of the calculations (as insignificant post-solution display as described in MPEP 2106.05(g)) without affecting how a display operates or how the display is improving in function. Ae explained by the Electronic Power Group Court: "Though lengthy and numerous, the claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101," (see Electronic Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 830 F. 3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at pg. 2). Likewise, the end result and focus of the present claim is the abstract idea derivation of a processed estimated value as a desirable informational-based result, where the surrounding hardware elements amount to peripheral data gathering and outputting without any applied improvement to their function or operation.
9. Applicant further argues in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections under Step 2A Prong Two (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 6/17/2026, pg. 11 paragraph 3 through pg. 13 paragraph 1) that:
PNG
media_image3.png
478
648
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
844
636
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
100
656
media_image5.png
Greyscale
10. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the newly added limitations provide an integration into a practical application. Respectfully, the generating of a presentation screen that displays in parallel, the estimated data and molding condition or the actual value, in an arrangement in which pieces of data corresponding to the same shot are visually recognizable as being associated with each other, amounts to insignificant post-solution displaying (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of the data values of the estimated value, molding condition, or actual value. The display of "information" in a particular format is still "information," and the use of "a display to display the presentation screen" amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(f)). Merely presenting the output calculations in a particular format does not amount to an improvement in the functioning of the display, as a person could equivalently write down the data values associated with each related shot in column format in parallel on paper, and the display is merely presenting information and not changing its operating performance in any way.
The Examiner further disagrees that there is a particular machine recited in the claim. Every generic computer has processors and memory storing instructions that are executed by the processors. The detector in the injection molding machine is described at such a general level that it does not constitute as a "particular" arrangement, and amounts to insignificant extrasolution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) as all uses of the recited judicial exception (that involves calculations/analyses based on a detected actual value of a physical quantity obtained in a shot) would require such necessary data gathering from a detector located in the injection molding machine.
The Examiner would like to point out that there may be an integration into a practical application found in Applicant's argument that "the generation of this specific presentation screen provides an improvement to the technology of operating and performing quality control of an injection molding machine, because it enables per-shot estimated data to be reviewed in association with the molding condition or actual value of the same shot on a screen resembling a familiar logging-data screen, and thereby enables a user to perform quality control of a molding product and setting of molding conditions without physically extracting and measuring the molding product." The actual performing of some physical quality control or change in manufacturing, such as changing molding settings of the injection molding machine, based on the presented estimated data, would amount to an integration into a practical application to improve the manufacturing of future molding products. Just as in Diamond v. Diehr where the end result was not merely determining a rubber curing time or merely displaying a calculated result of a rubber curing time, but using such a calculation to control a molding press based on the rubber curing time, the present invention needs limitations to define a physical operation or control that is changed (for an improvement to the technology) based on the determined estimated data.
11. Applicant further argues in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections under Step 2B (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 6/17/2026, pg. 13 paragraph 4 through pg. 15 paragraph 1) that:
PNG
media_image6.png
528
626
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
546
650
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
292
670
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
140
632
media_image9.png
Greyscale
12. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the newly added limitations recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The example of Bascom amounted to significantly more because an inventive concept was found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filter features specific to each end user (see November 2, 2016 "Memo", https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/McRo-Bascom-Memo.pdf). This is not analogous to the claims in the present case, as there are no limitations in the present claims detailing any "non-conventional arrangements" of known, conventional elements. A general detector is merely placed in the injection molding machine, which is conventional for a sensing device that needs to measure data related to each shot in injection molding. The limitations to "acquire, for each shot in the injection molding, estimated data for the shot…the estimated data indicating a result or state associated with the injection molding in the shot." …" is not a particular "arrangement" of a physical additional element, but rather part of the identified abstract idea, where any nonconventional data processing calculations of "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The limitations to "generate a presentation screen that displays in parallel, the estimated data and the molding condition or the actual value, in an arrangement in which pieces of data corresponding to the same shot are visually recognizable as being associated with each other" may be a unique presentation of abstract data, but not non-conventional or non-generic physical arrangement of the display itself. In other words, a display is known in the industry to present a wide range of calculated information in a wide variety of formats, and thus the function of the display is not described in a non-conventional or non-generic way to do anything different than what displays are normally are able to do (i.e., present data appropriate to the application it is used for). Even taken in combination, there are no structural details regarding any unconventional arrangements of the detector, processors, memory, or display to describe anything more beyond a generic sensor and generic computer that is used as a tool for implementing the abstract idea.
13. The rest of Applicant's Arguments/Remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections for the remaining independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the same arguments as presented above. These arguments have been considered, and are respectfully responded for the same reasons as given for claim 1.
Conclusion
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this 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 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 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 PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9:30 am to 6 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached on (571)272-2619. 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.
PAUL D. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 8/22/2026
Prosecution Insights