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 .
Response to Arguments
2. The Amendment filed on April 30, 2026 has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 6-7, 10, the cancellation of claims 2, 8, and the addition of claim 11.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues an improvement to a technical field, cast product management and application of countermeasures against cast product defects, and an improvement to the functioning of a computer.
Decomposing the independent claim reveals some core processes and actions of the invention, namely, acquiring defect information on a cast product, defect position, photographs of the defect, the product, a figure of the product, an image obtained from 2D and 3D models of the product, employing a database to store information on the defect and when it was manufactured. The claim continues, the system comprising a computer configured to output a time-series transition of the information on the defect, in images from the previously acquired information. Finally, the computer determines a countermeasure against the defect and (is configured to) perform a change in the manufacturing process. Analysis of the sequence of functions seems to describe defect data collection, compilation, storage and retrieval to display images of the casting defect. A terminal with a display is disclosed in a dependent claim. The computer next determines a countermeasure. The basis of the determination is not provided.
It cannot be determined if the computer performs analysis on collected data to support determination of a countermeasure, of if the collected data is used in another way to determine a countermeasure. Based on the content of claim 1, one broad interpretation of the core processes might infer that images are collected and displayed by the computer such that an operator could make a determination of a course of remedial action that the invention supported through the presentation of data, while another broad interpretation might be that the invention performs complex analysis on the defect, devises data driven solutions, prepared for implementation. An interpretation leading to data driven solutions for implementation is not supported in the claims or otherwise. Similarly, the actions of performing a change to the manufacturing process are not enumerated, so again the range of interpretation spans from the human taking action, which is a case of applying software to a computer, to complex automation executing real time implementation. Again, an interpretation of complex automation executing real time implementation is not supported.
The specification provides additional detail concerning the data collection and analysis, the summary stating that the disclosure of the invention “provides a technique capable of outputting information that can be used to determine a countermeasure against the defect of a cast product.” The Examiner notes that although the output of information for determining a countermeasure may be useful for the production process, this does not indicate a practical application, required of the invention to become patent eligible. There is no indication of the integration of the abstract ideas with additional elements to perform an action or control function in the process, nor is there evidence supporting improving the performance of a computer or a processor or applications of artificial intelligence or machine learning integrated into a practical application of this invention.
The additional argument of a practical application existing in the form of effecting a transformation of an article to a different state or thing appears misapplied here. The claim cites acting upon a defect and applying a countermeasure to correct it. A “transition” between a defected and corrected casting is a repair or corrective process. It is not a transition evolution; it was originally a casting and completes the process as a casting.
Based on the claims as written, the presence of a practical application in the form of an improvement to the technology of a computer or a specific improvement to the technical field is not apparent and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will not be withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1,3,6-7,9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1,3,6-7,9-11 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1,3,6-7,9-11 are directed to a machine (system), which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1,3,6-7,9-11 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of managing a casting process and correlating defects in the process using a time-series collection of process information and data.
Claim 1 discloses a method comprising:
acquiring, information on a defect of an inspected cast product, (following rules or procedures, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), the information on the defect includes information on a position of the defect in the cast product and includes one or more of a photograph of the cast product, a figure of the cast product, an image obtained from a two-dimensional model or a three-dimensional model of the cast product;
storing the information on the defect and information on a period when the cast product is manufactured in association with each other; (following rules or procedures, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and
producing a time-series transition of the information on the defect with reference to the data, (following rules or procedures, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and an image including an appearance of the cast product and the position of the defect, the image includes a
plurality of still images displayed in order based on the information on the period when the cast product is manufactured, each still image of the plurality of still images shows the position of the defect, (following rules or procedures, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), each still image includes one or more of a photograph of the cast product, a figure of the cast product, an image obtained from a model of the cast product, the plurality of still images are
continuously displayed as if to turn over the pages in chronological order based on the information on the period when the cast product is manufactured, and the positions of the plurality of defects corresponding to the plurality of still images are displayed to move on the cast product, (following rules or procedures, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
determine a countermeasure against the defect of the cast product; and
perform a first change in a manufacturing process of the cast product between a first period and a second period, wherein the first period and the second period are
periods before and after the first change, wherein the first change is the determined
countermeasure against the defect, (following rules or procedures, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Additional limitations provide information on showing the appearance of the cast product (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 3), storing information on when the cast product is changed, content of the change, specification of the cast product and position of the defect, providing information on the period when the manufacturing process of the product is changed, the content of the change, information on the specification of the product with a time-series transition of the position of the defect, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 6), storing information on a period when the manufacturing process is changed, the content of the change, information on the defect, and information on the period when the manufacturing is changed and information on the content of the change and the time-series transition of the information on the defect, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 7), including information that the product does not include a defect, a repairable defect or a non-repairable defect, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 9), storing information on the defect, on the period when the product was manufactured, the specification of the product and providing information on a specification of the product along with time-series transition of the information on the defect, product (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 10), determining a countermeasure against a defect and performing another change in the process, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 11).
Each of these claimed limitations involve organizing human activity by following rules or instructions, and employing mental processes involving observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion,
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1,3,6-7,9-11 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1,3,6-7,9-11 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a system, an acquisition unit, an input terminal, a two-dimensional or three-dimensional model of the cast product, an output unit, a database, a computer, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1,3,6-7,9-11 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1,3,6-7,9-11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1,3,6-7,9-11 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
Claims 1,3,6-7,9-11 were previously not rejected under 35 USC § 103.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703) 756-1822, (michael.borowski@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights