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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Amendment and Response to Non-Final Office Action (“Response”) on 11 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the limitations of constructing and displaying and connecting by a line are not abstract ideas (Response: pgs. 15-16). However, a human can display a graph to another human and further a person can construct a graph, connect a line and bolding a line using a pen and paper. Since this idea covers a step of managing interactions between people and also steps which could be done on pen and paper, it can be interpreted as a certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes respectively and are therefore abstract ideas.
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 adds in the Response the limitation “wherein the contract material is processed in the intelligent steel production line based on at least one corresponding process including steel making, hot rolling, acid washing, cold rolling, annealing, or hot-dip galvanizing”. However, this limitation is recited as post-solution activity which is not necessarily limiting to the method and apparatus and therefore does not carry any patentable weight, nor can it transform the patent ineligible subject matter into patent eligible subject matter. However, if the limitation were positively recited to actually create the contract material using the recited methods of steel making, hot rolling, acid washing, cold rolling, annealing, or hot-dip galvanizing, this would certainly be a positive step forward in overcoming the rejection under 35 USC 101.
Applicant argues that by adding a steel production line, they have integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. However, 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, bolding, updating, removing, repeating and displaying steps), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. obtaining step) and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e. “in an intelligent steel production line”). 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.
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 in an intelligent steel production line, 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 and display 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, wherein information on a futures contract and information on a cold/hot-rolled excess material in each matching pair in the matching relationship graph are connected by a line;
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 the contract material is processed in the intelligent steel production line based on at least one corresponding process including steel making, hot rolling, acid washing, cold rolling, annealing, or hot-dip galvanizing;
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;
bolding the line connection information on a futures contract and information on a cold/hot-rolled excess material in each matching group in the matching relationship graph;
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 displaying changed 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, and
displaying the use solution, wherein herein the use solution includes at least one successfully matched matching pair, wherein information on a futures contract and information on a cold/hot-rolled excess material in each successfully matched matching pair are connected by a line, and the at least one successfully matched matching pair includes the at least one matching group.
.
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 in an intelligent steel production line” and “wherein the contract material is processed in the intelligent steel production line based on at least one corresponding process including steel making, hot rolling, acid washing, cold rolling, annealing, or hot-dip galvanizing” (which is post-solution activity and not even limited by the method/apparatus claims), 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;… display 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 … 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… displaying changed matching relationship graph; and displaying the use solution, wherein herein the use solution includes at least one successfully matched matching pair, wherein information on a futures contract and information on a cold/hot-rolled excess material in each successfully matched matching pair are connected by a line, and the at least one successfully matched matching pair includes the at least one matching group” 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, wherein information on a futures contract and information on a cold/hot-rolled excess material in each matching pair in the matching relationship graph are connected by a line … 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; bolding the line connection information on a futures contract and information on a cold/hot-rolled excess material in each matching group in the matching relationship graph; 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; 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 in an intelligent steel production line (claims 1 and 22), “wherein the contract material is processed in the intelligent steel production line based on at least one corresponding process including steel making, hot rolling, acid washing, cold rolling, annealing, or hot-dip galvanizing” (claims 1 and 11, however this is post-solution activity and not actually limited by the method/apparatus), 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, bolding, updating, removing, repeating and displaying steps), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. obtaining step) and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e. “in an intelligent steel production line”). 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 claims do 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, insignificant extra-solution activity and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights