DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status
This action is a Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 04/24/2026.
Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are amended.
Claims 10-15 are added
Claims 1, 2, and 4-15 remain pending in this application.
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, 2, 4-8, 10-14 are directed towards a system and claim 9, 15 directed towards a method, all of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
With respect to claims 1, 2, and 4-15, the independent claims (claims 1 and 9) are directed to managing of consumption/emission data, In independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1, an analysis system comprising:
at least one processor to execute a program;
at least one memory to store the program which, when it is executed by the processor, performs processes of:
measuring at least one of an amount of consumed energy, an amount of emitted drainage, or an amount of exhausted air as a consumption/emission amount in a step including manufacture of a target product; and
the measuring includes
setting a measurement unit of the consumption/emission amount on the basis of the configuration of data in the profile or setting a method of measuring the consumption/emission amount on the basis of the method of measuring the data in the profile.
these steps fall within and recite an abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes commercial interaction includes business relations; managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, If the identified limitation(s) falls within any of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, the analysis should proceed to Prong Two. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of processor, memory, model, processing circuit; (Claim 9 processor, memory, model, processing circuit). The claims recite the steps are performed by the processor, memory, model, processing circuit.
The limitations of
extracting the step corresponding to the consumption/emission amount that is equal to or greater than a first threshold by analyzing the consumption/emission amount, wherein information determining the a configuration of data to be measured or a method of measuring the data in a changeable manner is defined as a profile, and
controlling at least one measuring processing circuit to measure the consumption/emission amount using the set measurement unit in the step including manufacture of the target product or controlling at least one measuring processing circuit to measure the consumption/emission amount using the set method of measuring the consumption/emission amount in the step including manufacture of the target product.
are mere data gathering and processing recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the limitations are recited as being performed by processor, memory, model, processing circuit. The processor, memory, model, processing circuit are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), the processor, memory, model, processing circuit are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The processor, memory, model, processing circuit are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 5 and 10 recites machine learning model. The general use of a machine learning technique does not provide a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements are the processor, memory, model, processing circuit. The additional elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and processing. Then, the machine learning techniques recited in claim 5 and 10 are disclosed at a high-level of generality (see at least Specification [0068 “The consumption/emission amount learning unit 213 performs machine learning on the basis of a consumption/emission amount 220 stored in the storage device 212B and generates a consumption/emission model 221 for making an inference.”]) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of
extracting the step corresponding to the consumption/emission amount that is equal to or greater than a first threshold by analyzing the consumption/emission amount, wherein information determining the a configuration of data to be measured or a method of measuring the data in a changeable manner is defined as a profile, and
controlling at least one measuring processing circuit to measure the consumption/emission amount using the set measurement unit in the step including manufacture of the target product or controlling at least one measuring processing circuit to measure the consumption/emission amount using the set method of measuring the consumption/emission amount in the step including manufacture of the target product.
are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to processing data and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 10 As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a processor, memory, machine learning, model to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, and 10-15 do not contain any new additional elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims. In this case, the claims are rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 5, 6, and 10 recite model/machine learning to generate and extract data. The dependent claims 2, 4-8, and 10-15 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 2, 4-8, and 10-15 recites processor, memory, model, processing circuit which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and analyzing data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 2, 4-8, and 10-15 recites processor, memory, model, processing circuit, which merely recites an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 2, 4-8, and 10-15 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claims 1 and 9. Therefore claims 2, 4-8, and 10-15 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Reasons for Removing the Prior Art Rejection
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as to claim 1, 2, and 4-15 are removed in light of Applicant's claims of 04/24/2026, which are deemed to overcome independent claim 1. The reasons for withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 can be found at the following claim limitations of 04/24/2026 at claim 1 as follows:
Claim 1
Claim 1, an analysis system comprising:
at least one processor to execute a program;
at least one memory to store the program which, when it is executed by the processor, performs processes of:
measuring at least one of an amount of consumed energy, an amount of emitted drainage, or an amount of exhausted air as a consumption/emission amount in a step including manufacture of a target product; and
extracting the step corresponding to the consumption/emission amount that is equal to or greater than a first threshold by analyzing the consumption/emission amount, wherein information determining the a configuration of data to be measured or a method of measuring the data in a changeable manner is defined as a profile, and
the measuring includes
setting a measurement unit of the consumption/emission amount on the basis of the configuration of data in the profile or setting a method of measuring the consumption/emission amount on the basis of the method of measuring the data in the profile, and
controlling at least one measuring processing circuit to measure the consumption/emission amount using the set measurement unit in the step including manufacture of the target product or controlling at least one measuring processing circuit to measure the consumption/emission amount using the set method of measuring the consumption/emission amount in the step including manufacture of the target product.
It appears the prior arts, Kobayashi and/or Cole does not disclose the following limitations:
"setting a measurement unit of the consumption/emission amount on the basis of the configuration of data in the profile or setting a method of measuring the consumption/emission amount on the basis of the method of measuring the data in the profile, and
controlling at least one measuring processing circuit to measure the consumption/emission amount using the set measurement unit in the step including manufacture of the target product or controlling at least one measuring processing circuit to measure the consumption/emission amount using the set method of measuring the consumption/emission amount in the step including manufacture of the target product."
This applies to independent claim 9 as these claims includes the same feature of claim 1.
Page 9 of 13
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 04/24/2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 9-11 Applicant argues with respect to claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea
In response to the 35 USC § 101 claim rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation both individually and as a whole, since the grounds of rejection clearly indicates that an abstract idea has been identified from elements recited in the claims. Using the two-part analysis, the Office has determined there are no elements, in the claim sufficient enough to ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As recited, the claims are directed towards:
Claim 1, an analysis system comprising:
at least one processor to execute a program;
at least one memory to store the program which, when it is executed by the processor, performs processes of:
measuring at least one of an amount of consumed energy, an amount of emitted drainage, or an amount of exhausted air as a consumption/emission amount in a step including manufacture of a target product; and
extracting the step corresponding to the consumption/emission amount that is equal to or greater than a first threshold by analyzing the consumption/emission amount, wherein information determining the a configuration of data to be measured or a method of measuring the data in a changeable manner is defined as a profile, and
the measuring includes
setting a measurement unit of the consumption/emission amount on the basis of the configuration of data in the profile or setting a method of measuring the consumption/emission amount on the basis of the method of measuring the data in the profile, and
controlling at least one measuring processing circuit to measure the consumption/emission amount using the set measurement unit in the step including manufacture of the target product or controlling at least one measuring processing circuit to measure the consumption/emission amount using the set method of measuring the consumption/emission amount in the step including manufacture of the target product.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions.
Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations for managing of consumption/emission data, which constitutes methods related to commercial interactions such as sales business relations; managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The software (simulation process) is comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology.
Regarding, the steps at pg. 10 that Applicant points to as specific technological improvement are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible.
Additionally, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which managing of consumption/emission data on behalf of a provider will fall under. The 2019 PEG which states:
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).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Quigley et al., W.O. Pub. 2022120046, (discussing the measuring and controlling of greenhouse gas emissions ).
Al-Aomar et al., A Data-Driven Predictive Maintenance Model For Hospital HVAC System With Machine Learning, https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2023.2206989, Building Research & Information, 2024 (discussing the measuring the usage of machinery with the use of machine learning).
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 UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
UCHE BYRD
Examiner
Art Unit 3624
/UCHE BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights