DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is FINAL and is in response to the claims filed June 17, 2026. Claims 1-3 are currently pending, of which claims 1 and 3 are currently amended. Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Specification
Applicant has amended the title and this new title has been accepted and entered.
Rejections Under 35 USC §101
Applicant has amended the claims at issue and argues that the claims are drawn to a particular technological environment and that the standardization and accumulation of reasons assist the operator in analyzing production of molded products. See Remarks 7-8. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s remarks.
Firstly, at best, the claimed invention is improving how a user can report problems and reasons of those problems. This is not an improvement to the technology or technical field, but to the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Secondly, the claims are still directed to the mental processes and methods of organizing a human activity as discussed in the rejection below. A user/operator can still merely observe and record a process and report what is causing any issues. These reports can be shared in a production environment with other users/operators for when similar problems occur. If there is a particular employee that knows that “machine X has issues when doing action Y”, they can certainly report said issue to be known to other operators in the facility.
As currently claimed, there are no explicit adjustments made to the molded product and/or injection procedure itself based on the reported issues. Additionally, there is not anything else in how the interface inputs go beyond a general user interface. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s). Finally, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated is at best insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3); see also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.
Claim Interpretation and Rejections Under 35 USC 112
Applicant has amended the claims at issue and the previous claim interpretation in light of 35 U.S.C. §112(f) has therefore been withdrawn, as none of the claim language invokes §112(f). Therefore, the previous rejections for indefinite structure have also been withdrawn.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previously cited art have been fully considered. Specifically, Applicant has amended the claims at issue and argues that the prior art (mainly, Reese) does not teach the “screen-based system for selecting a reason for exceptional process at the time the exceptional process is implemented.” See Remarks 9. These arguments are moot as new reference Mazzocco has been introduced and replaces the teachings of the previous references.
It is for at least these reasons and the reasons cited below that the claims remain rejected in this Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (system). At Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim language has been reproduced below and the abstract ideas identified accordingly:
A production process management system of reasons for an exceptional process in an injection molding device, the production process management system comprising:
a server including:
an interface configured to communicate with a terminal device;
a memory configured to store a program, a reason identification information concerning a reason why the exceptional process is implemented, and a reason classification information; and
a processor configured to execute the program so as to:
output an instruction via the interface to the terminal device to cause a display of the terminal device to display a reason selection screen, the reasons selection screen including an input field to select the reason identification information and an input field to select the reasons classification information, when the exceptional process is implemented in production of a product in the injection molding device (mental process – evaluation; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices);
receive a selection of the reasons classification information or a selection of the reasons identification information from the terminal device via the interface (mental process – evaluation; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices); and
store information concerning the exceptional process, and the selected reason classification information or the selected reason identification information in correlation with each other in the memory (mental process – evaluation; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices).
That is, each limitation can practically be performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper as well as be classified as a certain method of organizing a human activity. In any environment, a user/operator can be evaluating a process and making adjustments accordingly. Certain companies/factories may have specific rules and actions to take depending on what issues are occurring in the process.
At Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements have been bolded above. The production of a molded product is merely a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The data storage and other computer components (such as the memory and processor) are also recited at a high level of generality and at best is adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The selection on a screen is high level and generic, and only requires a user to pick and/or enter data. Displaying data at this high of a level of generality could practically be performed in the human mind, while also being insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106(III.)(A.); see also MPEP 2106.05(g)(3); see also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A..
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
As per claim 2, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of classifying processes (mental process – evaluation and judgment; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices). At Steps 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
As per claim 3, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of classifying processes (mental process – evaluation and judgment; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices). At Steps 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazzocco et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0324934; hereinafter “Mazzocco”).
As per claim 1, Mazzocco teaches a production process management system of reasons for an exceptional process in an injection molding device (See Mazzocco paras. [0045-48]), the production process management system comprising:
a server (See Mazzocco paras. [0047-48]) including:
an interface configured to communicate with a terminal device (See Mazzocco Figs. 1 and 3 and paras. [0064-69]: interactable display on terminal device at work island);
a memory configured to store a program, a reason identification information concerning a reason why the exceptional process is implemented, and a reason classification information (See Mazzocco para. [0045]); and
a processor configured to execute the program (See Mazzocco para. [0045]) so as to:
output an instruction via the interface to the terminal device to cause a display of the terminal device to display a reason selection screen, the reasons selection screen including an input field to select the reason identification information and an input field to select the reasons classification information, when the exceptional process is implemented in production of a product in the injection molding device (See Mazzocco Figs. 1, 3, and paras. [0014-20]: user can select likely causes or defects. “The user can be asked a specific question selected from a database of questions by means of correlation with the causes present in the subset, and an answer input can then be read from the user interface.”; para. [0025]: injection molding press);
receive a selection of the reasons classification information or a selection of the reasons identification information from the terminal device via the interface (See Mazzocco paras. [0014-20]: user can select likely causes or defects from a list or menu); and
store information concerning the exceptional process, and the selected reason classification information or the selected reason identification information in correlation with each other in the memory (See Mazzocco paras. [0023], [0075] and [0080]: storing reasons and results in database which can be in the memory).
As per claim 2, Mazzocco further teaches the production process management system according to claim 1, wherein the exceptional process includes a maintenance process, a discarding process, an inspection non-implementation process, or a quantity adjustment process (See Mazzocco paras. [0022] and [0078-84]: maintenance/repair instructions based on solutions provided. The solutions can be chosen and incorporated into the production process. This is maintenance).
As per claim 3, Mazzocco teaches the production process management system according to claim 1, wherein
the storage unit stores first master data and second master data (See Mazzocco paras. [0049-60]: multiple databases storing various data types, including a number of solutions to a number of problems),
the first master data includes the reason classification information relating to first reason type information that is information concerning a type of the exceptional process, the second master data includes the reason classification information relating to second reason type information that is information concerning the type of the exceptional process and is different from the first reason type information (See Mazzocco paras. [0007-12] and [0049-60]: multiple databases, including technical problems, causes and solutions. A list is displayed to the user based on refining information about the defect. Therefore, multiple reasons are displayed and refined based on the process occurring and the potential problem causes) includes multiple solutions Reese Fig. 5 and para. [0074]: different types of data stored and shown, including respective actions taken (exceptional processes) in response to specific defects encountered), and
the production process management system further comprises an output unit configured to output a reason list screen on which the reason classification information included in the first master data and the reason classification information included in the second master data are displayed as a list (See Mazzocco paras. [0007-12] and [0049-60]: A selectable list is displayed to the user based on refining information about the defect. Therefore, multiple reasons are displayed and refined based on the process occurring and the potential problem causes).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
