CTNF 18/606,391 CTNF 89187 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 non-final and is in response to the claims filed March 15, 2024. Claims 1-4 are currently pending, of which claims 1-4 are currently rejected. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-4 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 comprising: a first acquiring unit configured to acquire reason classification information that is information concerning a reason why an exceptional process different from a standard process was implemented in production of a molded product ( mental process – evaluation; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices ); a second acquiring unit configured to acquire reason identification information that is identification information of the reason classification information ( mental process – evaluation; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices ); a storage unit configured to store the reason classification information acquired by the first acquiring unit and the reason identification information acquired by the second acquiring unit in correlation with each other ( mental process – evaluation; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices ); and a receiving unit configured to receive selection of the reason classification information or the reason identification information when the exceptional process is implemented, wherein information concerning the exceptional process and the reason classification information or the reason identification information received by the receiving unit are stored in correlation with each other in the storage unit ( 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 is 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). 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. As per claim 4 , 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. Displaying data at this high of a level of generality could practically be performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106(III.)(A.); see also Electric Power Group v. Alstom . 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first acquiring unit”, “second acquiring unit”, “storage unit”, and “output unit” in claims 1, 3, and 4 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-23 Claim limitations “first acquiring unit”, “second acquiring unit”, “storage unit”, and “output unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, each of these units could be interpreted as software, hardware, and/or a combination of both. Therefore, claims 1 and 3 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claims 2 and 4 are rejected based on their dependency from an above-rejected claim. 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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reese et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0236414; hereinafter, “Reese”) and further in view of Shiraishi (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0165891) . As per claim 1 , Reese teaches a production process management system comprising: a first acquiring unit configured to acquire reason classification information that is information concerning a reason why an exceptional process different from a standard process was implemented in production of a [molded] product (See Reese Fig. 5 and para. [0074]: identifying responses to defects); a second acquiring unit configured to acquire reason identification information that is identification information of the reason classification information (See Reese Fig. 5 and para. [0074]: identifying defects to be responded to); a storage unit configured to store the reason classification information acquired by the first acquiring unit and the reason identification information acquired by the second acquiring unit in correlation with each other (See Reese para. [0062]: data storage module to store captured data, “where the data defines the features of the defect, such as location, type, etc., critical feature measurements, dimensionality, and contour of the build object. Thus, the present invention provides recording and logging of real time events, such as defects, corrections, location of each defect in 3D space, and recording of modifications to the object model and slicing parameters”); and a receiving unit configured to receive selection of the reason classification information or the reason identification information when the exceptional process is implemented, wherein information concerning the exceptional process and the reason classification information or the reason identification information received by the receiving unit are stored in correlation with each other in the storage unit (See Reese Fig. 5 and paras. [0062] and [0071-75]: “recording and logging of real time events, such as defects, corrections, location of each defect in 3D space, and recording of modifications to the object model and slicing parameters”. Furthermore, each type of defect is matched to a response and slicing parameters updated accordingly). However, while Reese manages classification information and responses to manufacturing defects, Reese does not implement these procedures in molded products. Shiraishi teaches production of a molded product (See Shiraishi paras. [0028-30]: injection molded articles). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the manufacturing components of Reese with the injection molded articles of Shiraishi. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose monitoring defects in manufacturing processes, and Shiraishi further enhances the manufacturing of Reese by expanding upon its applicability, allowing for more monitoring and control of a variety of systems and processes. Moreover, this allows for remediation measures to easily be taken to easily cope with defective moldings (See Shiraishi paras. [0015-16]). As per claim 2 , Reese/Shiraishi 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 Reese paras. : maintenance such as corrective actions to the manufacturing itself based on the type of defect encountered). As per claim 3 , Reese/Shiraishi further teaches the production process management system according to claim 1, wherein the storage unit stores first master data and second master data (See Reese para. [0062]: data storage module to store captured data), 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 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 Reese Fig. 5 and paras. [0014] and [0071-74]: “generate a build report listing the defects (both corrected and uncorrected) in the printed 3D object”). As per claim 4 , Reese/Shiraishi further teaches t he production process management system according to claim 3, wherein the first reason type information and the second reason type information are displayed on the reason list screen (See Reese Fig. 5 and paras. [0071-74]: build report provided to user device containing variety of information, including the corrected defects and their type, location, etc.) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/606,391 Page 2 Art Unit: 2118
Prosecution Insights