DETAILED ACTION
Response received on May 27, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 5-10 have been amended and Claims 11-12 have been newly incorporated. Therefore, Claims 1-12 are pending.
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 .
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the application filed on May 28, 2024 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 05/27/2026. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Priority
Application 18675576 was filed on 05/28/2024 and claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2023 102692, filed on June 22, 2023.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 27, 2026 has been entered.
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 1‐12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1-12 are directed to a device (machine). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory
categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes)
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 8. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A production management device comprising: circuitry configured to control a molding machine to execute a molding process to produce a molded article from a molding material, the molding machine including a plurality of sensors configured to detect actual values with respect to the molded article during the molding process; monitor whether the molded article produced during the molding process is defective and reject the molded article in response to determining that the molded article is defective as a result of said monitoring; acquire information indicating an emission amount of carbon dioxide corresponding to an amount of electric power supplied from each of one or more of power generation facilities, among power generation facilities owned by an electric utility company that has a contract for supplying electric power to the molding machine and a power generation facility provided for in-house power generation; acquire information indicating a ratio of the amount of electric power supplied from a corresponding one of the one or more of the power generation facilities for the molding machine to produce the molded article; and calculate an emission amount of carbon dioxide generated by the production of the molded article for each of a plurality of shots during the molding process, based on an amount of electric power used for the production of the molded article, the ratios of the amounts of electric power supplied from the one or more of the power generation facilities, and emission amounts of carbon dioxide corresponding to the amounts of electric power generated by the one or more of the power generation facilities, wherein the circuitry is further configured to, when the molding machine produces a plurality of molded articles from the molding material, acquire the actual values detected by the plurality of sensors for each of the plurality of molded articles during each of the plurality of shots, and to acquire the calculated emission amount of carbon dioxide as an actual value of the emission amount of carbon dioxide for each of the plurality of shots.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of calculate an emission amount of carbon dioxide generated by the production of the product, based on an amount of electric power used for the production of the product. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions include agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.). That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a production management device (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing commercial interactions. For example, but for the production management device, the claim encompasses calculating an emission amount of carbon based on electricity usage received during product manufacturing, which is the management of production-related environmental data or commercial decision making based on resource usage. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a “a production management device”, “circuitry”, “a molding machine”, and “sensors”, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, Claims 1 and 8 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claims are merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 1 recites the additional element of “a production management device”, “circuitry”, “a molding machine”, and “sensors”. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of “circuitry”, “a molding machine”, and “sensors”. The recited circuitry are employed only for their ordinary and expected functions of displaying information and receiving user input through an interface, and are not relied upon to perform any abstract processing or to constitute an improvement to display technology itself. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, Claims 1 and 8 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of display unit and circuitry merely represent generic computer components performing their known functions of displaying information and receiving user input through an interface, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept or amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components which cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1 and 8 are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claim 1 to include acquires an amount of electric power consumed and calculates the emission amount of carbon dioxide generated by the production of the product further using the amount of electric power consumed. In addition, claim 2 recites a new additional element of “circuitry” which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore claim 2 is patent ineligible.
Claim 3-4 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the emission amounts of carbon dioxide corresponding to the amounts of electric power generated by the one or more of the power generation facilities are based on one or more of information provided by a company, receives an input of information relating to each of the ratios of the amounts of electric power supplied from the one or more of the power generation facilities. In addition, claim 4 recites a new additional element of “a screen displayed on a display” which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore claim 3-4 is patent ineligible.
Claim 5-6 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claim 1 to include receives information indicating emission amounts of carbon dioxide corresponding to amounts of electric power generated by the power generation facilities provided by the electric utility company and receives information indicating ratios of amounts of electric power generated by the power generation facilities owned by the electric utility company to calculate the emission amount of carbon dioxide generated by the production of the product, based on the received information. In addition, Claims 5-6 recite a new additional element of “circuitry”, and “communication unit” which is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore claim 5-6 are patent ineligible.
Claim 7 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claim to include receive an input of information relating to the ratio of the amount of electric power supplied from each of the one or more of the power generation facilities, display, the actual values detected and the calculated emission amount of carbon dioxide the actual value of the emission amount of carbon dioxide for each of the plurality of shots. In addition, Claim 7 recites the additional elements of “a production management system”, “the production management device”, “a display”, “the circuitry”, “a first screen”, “second screen”, “sensors” which is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore claim 7 is patent ineligible.
Claims 9-10 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claim to include display the acquired actual values detected and the actual value of the emission amount of carbon dioxide on a same screen and to display the acquired actual values detected and the actual value of the emission amount of carbon dioxide. In addition, the claims recite the additional elements of “the production management device”, “a display”, “the circuitry”, “screen”, “sensors”, “production device molding machine”, which is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore claims 9-10 are patent ineligible.
Claim 11-12 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claim to include monitor, for each of the plurality of shots, whether the molded article produced during the molding process is defective, and store a result of said monitoring in association with the emission amount of carbon dioxide generated each time the molded article is produced and wherein monitor, for each of the plurality of shots, whether the molded article produced during the molding process is defective, and store a result of said monitoring in association with the emission amount of carbon dioxide generated each time the molded article is produced. In addition, the claims recite the additional elements of “the production management device”, “the circuitry” , which is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore claims 11-12 are patent ineligible.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) on page 1 are noted. Examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claim 7 removing the term “unit”. Accordingly, claim 7 is no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 1 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that the above-noted additional limitations limit the use of the alleged abstract idea (certain methods of organizing human activities) to the practical application of a process of producing (molding) molded articles by a molding machine, during which a defective molded article is monitored and rejected. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that although the claim recites a molding machine and the monitoring and rejection of defective molded articles, these limitations merely provide the technological environment in which the abstract idea is carried out and do not meaningfully constrain or transform the claimed acquisition and use of power supply ratios, source specific carbon emission information, and per-shot emission calculations into an improvement to the molding process itself. Rather, the molding operation serves as the context from which production and energy-use data are obtained for the claimed carbon emission accounting. Applicant further argues that in addition, the above-noted additional limitations are integrally linked to the alleged abstract idea to achieve a technical advantage of, for example, making it possible to have a better understanding of a situation related to the production of a molded article), thus providing a specific improvement over prior technology. Thus, the additional limitations are meaningful limitations that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the asserted “better understanding” is merely an informational benefit from collecting and calculating production related emission data, not a technological improvement, as the claim does not use the calculated emissions to modify molding parameters, improve defect detection, or otherwise alter the operation of the molding machine or molding process. Applicant further argues that claims 1 and 8 are patent-eligible at Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. By addressing the rejection of claims 1 and 8, the rejection of claims 2-7, 9 and 10 depending therefrom is likewise addressed by nature of their dependency. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Claims 1 and 8 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements merely provide the molding environment and data used to perform the claimed emission analysis without improving or altering the molding technology. Accordingly, the dependent claims likewise remain ineligible by virtue of their dependency. Thus, the claims do not amount to a technological improvement and fail to provide an inventive concept. The argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1-12 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights