DETAILED ACTION
Response received on November 12, 2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 have been amended and Claims 9-10 have been newly incorporated. Therefore, Claims 1-10 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 Final Office action is in response to the application filed on May 28, 2024 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 11/12/2025. Claims 1-10 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.
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of November 12, 2025 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant’s remarks at the end of this office action.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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: “a display unit configured to display a first screen configured to receive an input of information relating to a ratio of an amount of electric power supplied from each of one or more power generation facilities” in Claim 7. Additionally, the word “unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder coupled with the above functions but without a structural recitation.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification page 29, lines 4-8 determines the corresponding structure of the apparatus performing these unit as follows: For example, the display device 760 may include a liquid crystal panel (an example of a display unit) for displaying a screen. The display unit is not limited to the liquid crystal panel, and another display device such as an organic EL may be used. Therefore, the unit is to be interpreted in light of the specification covering the scope of software operating on hardware modules covering the examples recited above.
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 § 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 1‐10 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 1-10 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 device for producing a product, the production device comprising: circuitry configured to 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 a production device 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 production device to produce a product; and calculate an emission amount of carbon dioxide generated by the production of the product for each of a plurality of shots, based on an amount of electric power used for the production of the product, 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 configured to, when the production device produces a plurality of products from a molding material, acquire actual values detected by sensors for each of the plurality of products 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.
Similarly, Claim 7, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A display device comprising: a display unit configured to display a first screen configured to receive an input of information relating to a ratio of an amount of electric power supplied from each of one or more power generation facilities, among power generation facilities owned by an electric utility company that has a contract for supplying electric power to a production device and a power generation facility provided for in-house power generation; and display, as a second screen, actual values detected by sensors for each of a plurality of products during each of a plurality of shots when the production device produces the plurality of products from a molding material and a calculation result of an emission amount of carbon dioxide generated by production of a product as an actual value of the emission amount of carbon dioxide for each of the plurality of shots, the calculation result being based on an amount of electric power used for the production device to produce the product, information indicating emission amounts of carbon dioxide corresponding to the amounts of electric power generated by the one or more of the power generation facilities, and the information indicating the ratios of the amounts of electric power received from the first screen.
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 device”, “circuitry””, “display unit”, “a first screen”, and “a second screen”, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, Claims 1, 7, 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”, production device”. Claim 7 includes the additional elements of “a display device”, “a display unit”, “first screen”, and “second screen”. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of “production device” and “circuitry”. The recited display unit and 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 1,7, 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, 7, 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.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to the subject matter which is present in independent claims 1, 7, and 8.
In regards to Claims 1, 7, and 8 with respect to the prior art, the closest reference appears to be Sakaino et al. (US 20230206354) in view of Zhou (US20230298023), further in view of Kang et al. (US 20180067089).
Sakaino et al. teaches a production management device comprising (See Abstract & FIG 1) circuitry configured to acquire information indicating an emission amount of carbon dioxide corresponding to an amount of electric power; (See [0007]) 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 production device to produce a product; (See [0007], [0063], [0091]) 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, the ratios of the amounts of electric power supplied from the one or more of the power generation facilities, (See [0007], [0092]). Zhou teaches 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 a production device and a power generation facility provided for in-house power generation (See [0007], [0036], [0024], [0058], [0064]). Kang et al. teaches emission amounts of carbon dioxide corresponding to the amounts of electric power generated by the one or more of the power generation facilities (See [0005], Also See [0048]).
However, Sakaino et al. in view of Zhou, further in view of Kang et al. alone or in combination fail to disclose or render obvious calculate an emission amount of carbon dioxide generated by the production of the product for each of a plurality of shot and wherein the circuitry is configured to, when the production device produces a plurality of products from a molding material, acquire actual values detected by sensors for each of the plurality of products 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, when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 1,7, and 8 and their dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 7 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that the claimed subject matter is directed to a technical process of calculating the emission amount of carbon dioxide based on physical data, and not to "managing commercial interactions". Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claim is directed to collecting, displaying, and calculating information regarding electric power usage and corresponding carbon dioxide emission amounts for products, activities that constitute organizing and presenting business related production and energy data using generic computing and display functions, rather than a specific improvement to a technical process or to computer technology itself. Applicant further argues that the claim is a technical process of calculating the emission amount of carbon dioxide based on the actual amount of usage of electric power in a production process, and is not agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that 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. Applicant further argues that claim 1 is patent eligible in Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance because claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that page 3 of the specification discusses that is well known to account for carbon emissions generated during product production and to consider electrical power consumption as a cost factor, which demonstrates that the claimed consideration of carbon emissions aligns with longstanding economic and environmental decision-making practices which falls within a certain method of organizing human activity. Additionally, that claim 1 recites organizing, analyzing, and displaying information, which constitutes an abstract idea (a judicial exception).
Applicant further argues that the claimed subject matter is directed to achieving an improvement in the calculation of the emission amount of carbon dioxide generated by production of a product through the use of specific rules in the processing of circuitry. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claimed calculation of a carbon dioxide emission amount using processing circuitry and specific rules merely implements an abstract idea of data collection and calculation on a generic display device and does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the computer, but rather an improvement to the accuracy of information reported about a product. Applicant further argues that claim 1 describes a specific way to achieve an improvement in the calculation of the emission amount of carbon dioxide generated by production of a product and thus amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception and that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that claim 1 merely applies the judicial exception of calculating and displaying carbon dioxide emission information using known data inputs on a generic display device, without reciting any specialized technical implementation of the production process, and therefore does not integrate the exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. 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 1-10 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection are noted. On page 9 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that nothing in Sakaino, however, teaches or suggests that the acquisition unit or the calculation unit is "configured to, when the production device produces a plurality of products from a molding material, acquire actual values detected by sensors for each of the plurality of products 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". Hence, the above-noted feature of claim 1 is a distinction over Sakaino. The examiner finds the applicants argument to be persuasive. Sakaino et al. in view of Zhou, further in view of Kang et al. alone or in combination fail to disclose or render obvious calculate an emission amount of carbon dioxide generated by the production of the product for each of a plurality of shot and wherein the circuitry is configured to, when the production device produces a plurality of products from a molding material, acquire actual values detected by sensors for each of the plurality of products 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, when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 1, 7, and 8 and their dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art. Accordingly, the examiner withdraws the corresponding prior art rejections based on that subject matter.
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
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 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
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626