DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Amendment and Response to Final Office Action (“Response”) on 17 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the step of obtaining information is not a certain method of organizing human activity (Response: pgs. 13-14). However, a human can obtain information on a contract from another human and a human can obtain information on materials from another human. Since this idea covers a step of managing interactions between people, it can be interpreted as a certain method of organizing human activity and is therefore an abstract idea.
Applicant argues the step of forming a matching pair and determining a matching weight is not a mental process (Response: pg. 14). However, a human can observe matching pairs on a graph and judge a matching weight and even form models with a pen and paper. Since this idea covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation and judgement of opinion (and further a step which could be done on pen and paper), it can be interpreted as a mental process.
Applicant argues the step of computing a graph/model based on a matching algorithms does not cover a mathematical relationship (Response: pgs. 14-15). Very similar to the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Memo, claim 2 of example 47, training an artificial neural network based on input data and a selected training algorithm was considered a mathematical calculation. Therefore, Applicant’s computing of a graph model based on a matching algorithm is also considered a mathematical relationship.
Applicant argues the claims provide a practical application (Response: pg. 15). However, the additional elements (i.e. the electronic device) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. If the claims were to indeed make the material, then this would be a practical application or possibly not even an abstract idea at all, but instead the electronic device, computer, memory and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ (as even recited in claim 1 “applied in an electronic device”) the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. forming, computing, executing, determining, updating, removing and repeating steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. obtaining step). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Even further, the step of using the use solution to make a contract is further limiting the abstract idea of what could be considered a mental process (pen and paper) and the step of reducing inventory could be a reduction of inventory on paper (or some type of database) which post-solution activity (which is not necessarily limiting and even if it were, it would still not make the claim eligible) results in the physical inventory being reduced by some other means.
The amended steps added in the Response of determining, updating, removing and repeating are further limitations based on how the matching graph/model is computing based on the matching algorithm, therefore, just as explained above, these steps recite mathematical calculations, which is considered an abstract idea. Even without the algorithm, the above steps would be considered mental processes as models which could be performed with pen and paper. The recitation of the units, specifically in claims 11-16 and 19, look to be generic placeholders for software performing the corresponding steps being ‘applied in an electronic device’ (claim 1). Therefore, similar to claim 1, these steps amount to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. forming, computing, executing, determining, updating, removing and repeating steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. obtaining step). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, Applicant argues Examiner has not provided factual evidence (in view of Berkheimer) that the additional elements are not significantly more (Response: pg. 16). However, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the electronic device, computer, memory and processor amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, factual evidence under Berkheimer does not have to be provided when the additional elements are related to the above. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-6, 9, 11-16, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-6, 9, 11-16, 19 and 21-23 are directed to obtaining information on contracts, forming at least one matching pair of information on contract and information on excess material, computing a matching relationship graph and executing a use solution, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process (claims 1-6 and 9), machine (claims 11-16, 19 and 22), or article of manufacture (claim 21 and 23).
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 11 and 21-23) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method for cross-process use of cold/hot-rolled excess materials, applied in an electronic device, comprising:
obtaining information on multiple futures contracts and information on multiple cold/hot-rolled excess materials with same steel grade, wherein the multiple cold/hot-rolled excess materials are used as deficient materials of corresponding processes in the multiple futures contracts;
forming at least one matching pair consisting of information on a futures contract and information on a cold/hot-rolled excess material by taking information on the multiple futures contracts and information on the multiple cold/hot-rolled excess materials as nodes in a weighted binary graph, to construct a matching relationship graph between information on the multiple futures contracts and information on the multiple cold/hot-rolled excess materials, wherein the weighted binary graph is a model, and determining a matching weight of each matching pair in the at least one matching pair;
computing the matching relationship graph based on a binary graph maximum weight matching algorithm, to obtain a use solution between information on the multiple futures contract and information on the multiple cold/hot-rolled excess materials, wherein in the use solution, a matched cold/hot-rolled excess material is associated with information on a futures contract, and a maximum sum of matching weights of the at least one matching pair is obtained; and
executing the use solution so that the matched cold/hot-rolled excess material becomes a contract material of associated futures contract to be used in steel production process of a process which is defined by the associated futures contract and has same process with the matched cold/hot-rolled excess material, wherein executing the use solution comprises reducing inventory of the multiple cold/hot-rolled excess materials;
wherein computing the matching relationship graph based on the binary graph maximum weight matching algorithm, to obtain the use solution between the multiple futures contract and the multiple cold/hot-rolled excess materials, comprises:
determining at least one matching group in the at least one matching pair consisting of a futures contract and a cold/hot-rolled excess material in the matching relationship graph based on the binary graph maximum weight matching algorithm, according to preset constraint conditions, wherein the constraint conditions include at least one of the following: a matching quantity constraint, a contract process deficiency weight constraint, a use rule constraint, and a decision variable value constraint;
updating a material deficiency weight in a corresponding futures contract based on a cold/hot-rolled excess material of each matching group in the at least one matching group;
removing the at least one matching group and each cold/hot-rolled excess material in the at least one matching group from the matching relationship graph, and using changed matching relationship graph as a new matching relationship graph;
repeating process of computing the matching relationship graph until no matching pair consisting of a futures contract and a cold/hot-rolled excess material exist in the matching relationship graph.
.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mathematical concepts, mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a mathematical concept, performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “electronic device” language, “obtaining information on multiple futures contracts and information on multiple cold/hot-rolled excess materials with same steel grade, wherein the multiple cold/hot-rolled excess materials are used as deficient materials of corresponding processes in the multiple futures contracts; and executing the use solution so that the matched cold/hot-rolled excess material becomes a contract material of associated futures contract to be used in steel production process of a process which is defined by the associated futures contract and has same process with the matched cold/hot-rolled excess material, wherein executing the use solution comprises reducing inventory of the multiple cold/hot-rolled excess materials” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “forming at least one matching pair consisting of information on a futures contract and information on a cold/hot-rolled excess material by taking information on the multiple futures contracts and information on the multiple cold/hot-rolled excess materials as nodes in a weighted binary graph, to construct a matching relationship graph between information on the multiple futures contracts and information on the multiple cold/hot-rolled excess materials, wherein the weighted binary graph is a model, and determining a matching weight of each matching pair in the at least one matching pair… determining at least one matching group in the at least one matching pair consisting of a futures contract and a cold/hot-rolled excess material in the matching relationship graph …, according to preset constraint conditions, wherein the constraint conditions include at least one of the following: a matching quantity constraint, a contract process deficiency weight constraint, a use rule constraint, and a decision variable value constraint; updating a material deficiency weight in a corresponding futures contract based on a cold/hot-rolled excess material of each matching group in the at least one matching group; removing the at least one matching group and each cold/hot-rolled excess material in the at least one matching group from the matching relationship graph, and using changed matching relationship graph as a new matching relationship graph; repeating process of computing the matching relationship graph until no matching pair consisting of a futures contract and a cold/hot-rolled excess material exist in the matching relationship graph” in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Finally, “computing the matching relationship graph based on a binary graph maximum weight matching algorithm, to obtain a use solution between the multiple futures contract and the multiple cold/hot-rolled excess materials, wherein in the use solution, a matched cold/hot-rolled excess material is associated with a futures contract, and a maximum sum of matching weights of the at least one matching pair is obtained… wherein computing the matching relationship graph based on the binary graph maximum weight matching algorithm, to obtain the use solution between the multiple futures contract and the multiple cold/hot-rolled excess materials, comprises: determining at least one matching group in the at least one matching pair consisting of a futures contract and a cold/hot-rolled excess material in the matching relationship graph based on the binary graph maximum weight matching algorithm, according to preset constraint conditions, wherein the constraint conditions include at least one of the following: a matching quantity constraint, a contract process deficiency weight constraint, a use rule constraint, and a decision variable value constraint; updating a material deficiency weight in a corresponding futures contract based on a cold/hot-rolled excess material of each matching group in the at least one matching group; removing the at least one matching group and each cold/hot-rolled excess material in the at least one matching group from the matching relationship graph, and using changed matching relationship graph as a new matching relationship graph; repeating process of computing the matching relationship graph until no matching pair consisting of a futures contract and a cold/hot-rolled excess material exist in the matching relationship graph” in the context of this claim encompasses mathematical concepts. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula or mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites four additional elements – an electronic device (claims 1 and 22), a computer (claim 21), a memory (claim 22) and one or more processors (claims 22 and 23). The units recited in claim 11 are not necessarily additional elements and could be purely software. The electronic device, computer, memory and processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ (see even claim that states “applied in an electronic device”) the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. forming, computing, executing, determining, updating, removing and repeating steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. obtaining step). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an electronic device, computer, memory and processors amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the electronic device, computer, memory and processors are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627