Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 17, 2026
Application No. 18/823,717

MOLDING MACHINE

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Sep 04, 2024
Priority
Sep 04, 2023 — JP 2023-142831
Examiner
JOSEPH, TONYA S
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Toyo Machinery & Metal Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
24%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
Est. Remaining
43%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 24% of cases
24%
Career Allowance Rate
144 granted / 601 resolved
-36.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 5m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
647
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
37.6%
-2.4% vs TC avg
§103
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
§102
8.5%
-31.5% vs TC avg
§112
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 601 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 . 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter 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. MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1 The claims recite: inject a molding material into a cavity of a clamped mold; display information storing a plurality of condition data sets, each set including a plurality of setting values; and control the injection device in accordance with a selected condition data set selected in advance from the plurality of condition data sets stored in the memory, a selected condition display process of displaying the plurality of setting values included in the selected condition data set as a list on the display device and a stand-by condition display process of displaying the plurality of setting values included in a stand-by condition data set as a list, the stand-by condition data set being one of the condition data sets different from the selected condition data set, and, in the stand-by condition display process, causes the plurality of setting values displayed as a list among which the setting value identical to that of the selected condition data set and the setting value different from that of the selected condition data set are displayed in different modes. The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of business relations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “an injection device, display device, memory, control device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2 The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, “an injection device, display device, memory, control device”,. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f); - (an injection device, control device, display device and memory) The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; mere data gathering/post solution activity; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106 Step 2B Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception Dependent Claims Step 2A: The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A — Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A. Dependent Claims Step 2B: The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off. 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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. /TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 04, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12738117
Methods of estimating a throughput of a resource, a length of a queue associated with the resource and/or a wait time of the queue
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12700276
Methods of estimating a throughput of a resource, a length of a queue associated with the resource and/or a wait time of the queue
3y 8m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12694414
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING MALICIOUS ACTIVITY
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12675765
INFORMATION OUTPUT METHOD, INFORMATION OUTPUT APPARATUS, AND RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12670448
PERSONALIZING A SHARED RIDE IN A MOBILITY-ON-DEMAND SERVICE
5y 2m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
24%
Grant Probability
43%
With Interview (+19.0%)
4y 5m (~2y 5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 601 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month