DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in reply to Applicants response after Non-Final rejection received on January 5, 2026. Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 8 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application claims priority to PCT/JP2022/040298 filed on October 28, 2022 and claims priority to Japan 2021-178037 filed on October 29, 2021.
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 Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants amendments to claims 1, 5, and 8. Claims 4, 6 and 7 have been canceled at this time.
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, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 8 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is a system for mine management which is an apparatus (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
a server device that accumulates and processes working data of a mining machine transmitted from the mining machine; and
a determination device that performs determination processing of determining whether or not a working condition of the mining machine in which the productivity falls out of a plan has occurred, based on the working data; and
a terminal device including a display,
wherein the server device includes:
an extracting section that extracts cycle data as the working data for each work cycle of the mining machine, from the accumulated working data;
a computing section that computes a plurality of indicators representing an occurrence factor of the working condition in which the productivity falls out of a plan, in the cycle data; and
a learning section that uses the plurality of computed indicators to perform machine learning of allowing the determination device to learn a relationship between the plurality of indicators that identify the cycle data in which the productivity falls within a plan, and
wherein the determination device performs the determination processing based on the relationship between the plurality of indicators learned by the learning section,
wherein the learning section performs the machine learning by clustering a plurality of the cycle data in which the productivity falls within a plan,
wherein the determination device computes a score represented according to a distance between the cycle data extracted from the accumulated working data and a cluster center of a cluster to which the cycle data is classified, determines that the working condition in which the productivity falls out of the plan has occurred when the score is larger than a threshold, and transmits the determination result to the server device, and
wherein the server device totals a frequency of occurrence of the out-of-plan working condition, a frequency of appearance of the occurrence factor of the out-of- plan working condition, or the score for each period or for each of the mining machine, creates a graph illustrating the totaled result, a chart illustrating transition of the working data of the mining machine in which the out-of-plan working condition has occurred, or a map of work areas identified from the working data, and causes the display of the terminal device to display the graph, the chart, or the map.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Processes”. Accumulating working data of a machine, determining the productivity falls out of a plan based on indicators in the cycle data and determining the relationship between the indicators and the decrease in productivity, clustering the data, determining a score based on the data, clusters, and productivity is above a threshold, and displaying the results recites a concept performed in the human mind. But for the “server”, “machine learning”, and “display” language, the claim encompasses reviewing data from the mining machines, determining that productivity has gone down, calculating using indicators and learning the patterns and relationships in the cycle data of the machines clustering and scoring the data and displaying a result using his/her mind and/or pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic server, machine learning, and display does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a server and machine learning (Claim 1). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0121] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [Server device 211] and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-8 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim1 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
For instance, Claims 2 and 3 involve collection and analysis of data related to different machines which is covered as part of MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim 5 involves MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim 8 includes a display device which is used to display analyzed or calculated data (Claim 8; message to a concerned party.) which is a step covered in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. -Selecting information, based on type of information and availability [in a power grid environment], for collection, analysis, and display.
Therefore, the claims 2-8 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-8 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
The remarks begin on page 6 of the response on January 5, 2026. The Applicant begins with a summary of the claims. The argument begin (remarks page 6) with the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101. The Applicant disagrees with the rejection and takes the position that the claims no not fall into any of the groupings in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (Remarks page 8).
The arguments point to Step 2A, Prong 2 where integration into practical application results in claim eligibility. The Applicant argues that the additional elements reflect improvement in the functioning of a computer and this have integrated the claims to a practical application (remarks page 9). Specifically citing paragraphs 0004-0007, and directly par. 0005, the Applicant contends the claims are directed to an improvement in mine management to accurately detect when productivity falls out of a plan in connection with various factors.
The Examiner does not agree with the arguments. The collection of operation data of the mine, or elements withing the mine and analysis of said data with respect to specific timing and thresholds do not require a computer. A human using judgement, evaluation, and observation could reasonably collect the data, make the determinations, score the elements, and conclude that the productivity has decreased below a threshold based on the relationships of the elements. The application of a computer or processor is not indicative of practical application, rather it’s merely included as a tool to perform the other wise abstract idea, or to perform the mathematical calculations of the algorithms in the machine learning.
The Applicant also argues that the claims are integrated into practical application as claim 1 recites elements that improve mine management (remarks pages 11-14). The Applicant cites paragraphs [0100-0107] pointing to where the Applicant thinks the claims are improvements to the mine management. [0097] discusses the out of plan productivity connection to a plurality of factor indicators and the machine leaning of the relationships between the factor indicators allows the system to take appropriate measures (remarks page 12). Further in [0101] the argument is that the system determines the working conditions from the cycle data to detect where productivity falls out of a plan and take appropriate measure to improve productivity. Also, the argument (remarks page 14) cites the monitoring of frequency of occurrences where productivity falls out of plan and the overall tendency may be identified and improved. Arguments are that this recites additional elements which integrate the claim into a practical application.
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner does not find the claim to be integrated into a practical application, since the additional elements, in this case a system utilizing a server with machine learning and a display, are merely application of a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The system is collecting data about the mine and analyzing that data to determine productivity. The conclusion on all of this is to display a result. This is the same fact pattern and conclusion is seen in MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); The application of a system to analyze and calculate data for display is not more than application of a computer as a tool to perform the otherwise abstract idea. Additionally, the analysis of data looking for patterns or outliers where do not fit a normal group or progression and observation and judgement decision are well within mental process grouping of the judicial exception. The mere assertion or conclusion that the system can improve performance based on calculating data is not more than insignificant extra solution activity.
Applicants argue that the claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem for improvement of mine management. This includes a specific technique in which servers are receiving working data from mining machines, determining a result, performing data processing for visualizing the result, creating a graph, chart, or map for display (remarks page 15).
The Examiner disagrees. Receiving data and using it to determine results to create at least one visualization is not a technical solution to a technical problem. In this case it’s mere application of technology or a technological filed to a judicial exception. Also, the Examiner does not find data analysis to be a technical problem, nor is the analysis of data and presentation of a results a technical solution. A human can interpret the data and create a graph or a map using pen and paper. The Examiner finds this to be a solution to a business problem which is based on optimization or correction of out of plan situations which is rooted in mathematical concepts.
The arguments move to Step 2B where the Applicant argues that the claims recite unconventional elements that are significantly more than an abstract idea (remarks page 16). Arguments are that the inventive concept is non-conventional and non-generic features similar to BASCOM where the elements are an ordered combination. Arguments specifically point to the amendments where a learning section uses a plurality of indicators to learn a relationship and where machine learning performs clustering of the cycle data with productivity falls within a plan including scoring data. The argument further cites the amendment (remarks page 18) where the working and cycle data are used to determine conditions that fall out of the plan when compared to a threshold and a frequency of out of plan working conditions for each period and display of the results. Applicants position is that the claim elements are significant as they improve the technology of mine management, similar to BASCOM.
The Examiner is not convinced. The Examiner does not find the claims to be similar to BASCOM in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement. Specifically, the claimed limitations are simply a server, execution of a machine learning algorithm, and a display device. These elements are not a non-conventional arrangement. They are being used in their ordinary intended capacity in well know and predictable ways. Using computer algorithms to perform human functions in a quicker and more accurate manner is not indicative of practical application or significantly more. The courts have been clear on use of a computer to achieve results more quickly and accurately is not sufficient for eligibility (PTAB citing OIP Technologies, Inc., v. Amazon.com). In this instance, analyzing working data for mining equipment and determining data that falls outside the plan, or indicating data scores that do not fit into clusters is not more than data collection and analysis using a computer (see Electric Power Group). Additionally, the collection and analysis is merely used for display of a result. This is still the third step of Electric Power Group and does not render significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not eligible.
The arguments move to the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 (Remarks page 19) where the Applicant position is the claim amendments which incorporate claim 4 overcome the rejection.
The Examiner agrees and has withdrawn the rejection.
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 DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 April 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights