BitLaw

Example 45: Controller for Injection Mold

This example illustrates the application of Revised Step 2A to product claims reciting a machine or manufacture (a controller) for controlling the injection molding of a hypothetical chemical (polyurethane polymer X46). Claim 1 is ineligible because it is directed to judicial exceptions (abstract ideas), and the claim as a whole does not integrate the exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exceptions. Claim 2 recites the same judicial exceptions as claim 1, but is eligible because it recites other meaningful limitations that use the abstract ideas to improve the previous molding technology, such that the claim integrates the exceptions into a practical application. Claim 3 recites the same judicial exceptions as claims 1 and 2, and lacks any additional elements that integrate the exceptions into a practical application, but nonetheless is eligible in Step 2B because it recites a specific and unconventional tool in the data gathering steps that amounts to significantly more than the exceptions. Claim 4 recites a different judicial exception, and is eligible because it recites other meaningful limitations that use the abstract idea to improve the previous molding technology, such that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.

BACKGROUND

Injection molding is a manufacturing process that is commonly used to form plastic articles by injecting raw (uncured) material into a mold and then heating it to cure the material and obtain a product that retains its shape. Applicant has determined that its polyurethane polymer X46 is a particularly useful material for producing roller wheels for skateboards because, when properly cured, the polymer X46 has high strength and durability. Raw (uncured) polyurethane comprises small chemical molecules (monomers) including polyisocyanates (I) and polyols (P), and the curing process cross-links these molecules together to form a large polyurethane polymer InPx, , thereby changing the chemicals from their raw state into a more durable form that will retain a molded shape. In mathematical terms, the curing process involves the reaction of a large number (n) of polyisocyanates (l) with a large number (x) of polyols (P) to form the polyurethane polymer, i.e., n(I) + x(P) -> InPx.

Proper curing depends upon several factors, particularly temperature. When the polymer is cured within a temperature range of 30o to 100o Celsius (C), the conversion rate (cure rate) of the polymer obeys the Arrhenius equation, with optimal curing occurring at 85o C. If the curing temperature is too low, the polymer may not fully cure, or may take an undesirably long time to achieve a sufficient extent of cure, thereby decreasing efficiency of the molding process. If the temperature is too high (e.g., above 100o C), the polymer X46 undergoes an undesired side reaction that reduces ductility, decreases the strength of the polymer, and negatively affects the wear performance of the wheel.

Applicant describes using a standard or conventional injection mold apparatus to produce the skateboard wheels from its polymer X46, e.g., an apparatus comprising a mold defining a cavity for receiving uncured polyurethane, an injection mechanism for feeding the uncured polyurethane into the mold cavity, and a temperature regulation unit. As disclosed in the specification, the temperature regulation unit is configured to heat the mold to, and maintain the mold at, a target temperature, and comprises a heater to heat the mold, and a coolant system comprising tubes or pathways where cool liquid such as water or oil can be pumped through in order to quickly lower the temperature of the mold to avoid over-curing (and to cool the mold after the molded polyurethane is ejected, in order to prepare the mold for the next cycle of operation). The injection molding apparatus is controlled in the usual manner, e.g., applicant’s specification discloses the structure of various off-the-shelf industrial controllers that can be used to control the injection molding apparatus, all of which are implemented in hardware, or a combination of hardware and software such as a general purpose computer programmed to control the molding apparatus.

Applicant’s specification describes how its controller operates the injection molding apparatus, for instance by sending control signals to the injection molding apparatus to inject uncured polyurethane into the mold, to heat the mold to a target temperature to cure the polyurethane, and to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane from the mold once the extent of cure has reached a target percentage. The controller also receives the temperature of the mold repeatedly from a thermometer or other device, such as an industrial thermometer having a known thermocouple and a USB plug to connect it to the controller. Applicant discloses a means for temperature measuring, which is described in the specification as an industrial thermometer, which can be plugged into the controller, and that has a particular thermocouple formed from alloys ARC and XY (referred to as the “ARCXY” thermocouple) which has better long-term performance, faster response, and durability than other known thermocouples.

The controller uses the repeatedly obtained mold temperatures to monitor and adjust (if necessary) the mold temperature, e.g., by comparing the obtained temperature to a target temperature, so that the controller can signal the injection molding apparatus to maintain the temperature within two degrees of the target temperature by selectively heating or cooling the mold when the measured temperature of the mold is more than two degrees different than the target temperature. By maintaining the mold temperature within this set range (no more than two degrees higher or lower than the target temperature), applicant’s controller prevents the occurrence of undesirable side reactions that would otherwise negatively affect the cured polyurethane’s strength and wear performance.

The measured temperatures are also used by the controller to calculate the extent of curing completion using each of the temperatures and the Arrhenius equation. The conversion rate (or cure rate) dα/dt of thermal activated processes such as polyurethane molding can be described using equation (1), where α is the degree or extent of conversion (cure), k(T) is the temperature-dependent rate constant, and f(α) is the reaction model for polyurethane polymer X46, which is a common two component addition reaction. In the present application, k(T) is described by the Arrhenius equation (2), in which Aexp is the pre- exponential factor describing the collision frequency of the particles involved in the formation of the activated complex, E is the activation energy, T is the temperature in degrees Kelvin (oC + 273.15) and R is the gas constant. When the temperature-dependent rate constant k(T) in equation (1) is substituted with the Arrhenius equation (2), the resultant equation (3) is achieved.

The degree of conversion α is a unit-less parameter having values that range from zero to one, with zero representing zero conversion (no curing has occurred), and one representing complete conversion (cure is complete). To assist in monitoring curing completion, the extent of cure can be determined as a percentage by converting the value of α from decimal format into percentage format, e.g., an α of 0.4 can be converted into 40%, an α of 0.5 can be converted into 50%, and the like. The controller then compares this calculated percentage to a target percentage, so that the controller can determine when to signal the apparatus to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane, in order to obtain uniformly cured skateboard wheels from polymer X46. Because the claimed controller opens the mold and ejects the molded polyurethane at the precise time when the target percentage of cure is reached, the claimed controller avoids the problems associated with undercure and overcure, which would otherwise negatively affect the cured polyurethane’s strength and wear performance.

CLAIMS

1. A controller for an injection molding apparatus having a mold defining a cavity for receiving uncured polyurethane that is heated to form a molded article during a cycle of operation of the apparatus, the controller configured to:

(a) repeatedly obtain measurements of the temperature of a mold;
(b) calculate an extent of curing completion of polyurethane in the mold using the obtained temperatures and the Arrhenius equation; and
(c) determine the extent that the polyurethane is cured as a percentage.

2. The controller of claim 1, which is further configured to:

(d) send control signals to the injection molding apparatus once the polyurethane has reached a target percentage, the control signals instructing the apparatus to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane from the mold.

3. A system comprising the controller of claim 1 connected to a means for temperature measuring that repeatedly measures the temperature of the mold.

4. A controller for an injection molding apparatus having a mold defining a cavity for receiving uncured polyurethane that is heated to form a molded article during a cycle of operation of the apparatus, the controller configured to:

(a) send a control signal to the injection molding apparatus to regulate injection of uncured polyurethane into the mold, and to heat the mold to a target temperature to cure the polyurethane;
(b) repeatedly obtain temperature measurements of the mold;
(c) compare the obtained temperatures to a target temperature; and
(d) maintain temperature of the mold within two degrees of the target temperature by sending a control signal to the apparatus to selectively heat or cool the mold when the obtained temperature of the mold is more than two degrees different than the target temperature.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 is ineligible.

Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 is a controller (which is a device such as a general purpose computer in communication with sensors) for an injection molding apparatus, which performs the functions of (a) repeatedly obtaining measurements of the mold temperature, (b) calculating an extent

of curing completion (i.e., calculating the value of α) of polyurethane in the mold using the obtained temperatures and the Arrhenius equation; and (c) determining the extent that the polyurethane is cured as a percentage, i.e., converting the calculated value of α from decimal format into percentage format. The preamble here does not positively add limitations to the claimed controller, or further modify limitations recited in the body of the claim, and thus does not limit the claim. Instead, it indicates an intended use for the claimed controller, i.e., the controller is intended for use in controlling an injection molding apparatus.

Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a controller, which is a mechanical and/or electrical device such as a general purpose computer in communication with sensors. Thus, the claim is to a manufacture or a machine, which are 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(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. There are no nature- based product limitations in this claim (polyurethane is not a nature-based product), and thus the markedly different characteristics analysis is not performed. However, the claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.

Limitation (b) in the claim recites that the controller is configured to “calculate an extent of curing completion of polyurethane in the mold using the obtained temperatures and the Arrhenius equation.” As is evident from the background of this example, the claimed calculation is a mathematical calculation of the value of the extent of cure (degree of conversion) variable α, using mathematical formulas including the Arrhenius equation. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, limitation (b) recites a concept that falls into the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii) and (iii). Nor does the recitation of a controller in this claim negate the mental nature of this limitation because the claim here merely uses the controller as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process. Id. In addition, limitation (b) recites a law of nature because the Arrhenius equation describes the naturally occurring relationship between temperature and reaction rate for many chemical and biological reactions, such as the bloom time of cherry blossoms, the rate of cricket chirps, and the curing of polyurethane claimed in this example.

Although limitation (b) falls under several exceptions (e.g., a mathematical concept-type abstract idea, a mental process-type abstract idea, and a law of nature), there are no bright lines between the types of exceptions. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(I). Thus, it is sufficient for the examiner to identify that limitation

(b) aligns with at least one judicial exception, and to conduct further analysis based on that identification. See October 2019 Update at Section I.B n.7. For purposes of further discussion, this example identifies the recited exception as an abstract idea.

Limitation (c) in the claim recites that the controller is configured to “determine the extent that the polyurethane is cured as a percentage.” As is evident from the background of this example, this determination is a simple conversion of the value of α from decimal format into percentage format that is performed by multiplying the value of α by 100, in accordance with the mathematical relationship between a decimal value and its corresponding percentage, e.g., an α of 0.4 is equivalent to 40% of the polyurethane being cured, an α of 0.5 is equivalent to 50% of the polyurethane being cured, and the like.

This conversion between decimal and percentage representations is analogous to the conversion between binary-coded decimal and pure binary numerals at issue in Benson, which the Supreme Court described as a “mathematical problem[] of converting one form of numerical representation to another.” Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65 (1972). This limitation thus describes a “mathematical relationship,” which is specifically identified in the 2019 PEG as an exemplar in the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. In addition, because the BRI of limitation (c) requires the performance of an arithmetic operation (multiplying the value of α by 100), this limitation also describes a “mathematical calculation,” which is also specifically identified in the 2019 PEG as an exemplar in the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Id. Moreover, the recited conversion is also simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, and so it also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. Thus, limitation (c) recites a concept that falls into the “mathematical concept” and “mental process” groups of abstract ideas.

As explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 Update, in situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II), and October 2019 Update at Section I.B. Thus, for purposes of further discussion, this example considers limitations (b) and (c) as a single abstract idea.

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. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.

Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites the additional element of the controller being configured to repeatedly obtain measurements of the mold temperature in limitation (a). An evaluation of whether limitation (a) is insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong Two analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation (a) is well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, this additional element represents mere data gathering (obtaining the temperature values) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the temperature values are used in limitation (b)’s mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitation (a) in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The controller is also an additional element which is configured to carry out limitations (a), (b) and (c), i.e., it is the tool that is used to obtain the temperature measurements and perform the mathematical calculations and numeric conversions. But the controller is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that it is a “controller”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a controller. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the controller does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application 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. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, there are two additional elements. The first is the controller, which is configured

to perform limitations (a) through (c). As explained previously, the controller is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The second additional element is limitation (a), which as explained previously is extra-solution activity, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. Under the 2019 PEG, however, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. 2019 PEG Section III(B), 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the recitation of a controller being configured to repeatedly obtain measurements of the mold temperatures is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation (a) does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.

Practice note: A rejection of claim 1 should identify the exception by pointing to limitations (b) and (c) in the claim and explaining why they describe abstract ideas. The rejection should also explain that the controller and limitation (a) are additional elements that do not integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception because the recitation of the controller is a mere instruction to apply the exceptions on a computer, and limitation (a) is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality.

Limitation (a) is also well-understood, routine, conventional activity when expressed at this high level of generality, as noted in the specification itself (which is described above as disclosing the use of well-known controllers and thermocouples to perform this data gathering). Accordingly, a conclusion that limitation (a) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 1. If the examiner chooses to rely on this additional consideration in support of the rejection, the rejection should also note that support for the conclusion that limitation (a) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is found in the specification.

While the analysis here identifies the recited exception in limitation (b) as an abstract idea, it also explains that there are no bright lines between the types of exceptions, and that limitation (b) may also be identified as reciting a law of nature. The analysis also explains that limitations (b) and (c) fall under both the “mathematical concept” and “mental process” groups of abstract ideas. But regardless of whether these limitations are identified as mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or laws of nature, the analysis (and rejection) will be the same as previously described, other than the explanation of why the limitations are judicial exceptions.

Claim 2 is eligible.

Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and adds the additional limitation (d) regarding control signals that are sent to the injection molding apparatus once the polyurethane has reached a target percentage, so that the apparatus opens the mold and ejects the molded polyurethane from the mold.

Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a controller, which is a mechanical and/or electrical device such as a general purpose computer in communication with sensors. Thus, the claim is to a manufacture or a machine, which are 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. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and thus recites the same limitations (b) and (c) as claim 1. For the reasons discussed above for claim 1, these limitations recite abstract ideas, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.

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. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2) 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. The additional elements in this claim include the controller and limitations (a) and (d).

The recited controller is configured to perform limitations (a) through (c), i.e., it is the tool that is used to signal the injection molding apparatus to repeatedly obtain measurements of the mold temperature and perform the mathematical calculations and numeric conversions based on the measurements. For the same reasons stated previously with respect to claim 1, the controller and limitation (a) do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.

Limitation (d) is also an additional element, which specifies that the controller is configured to send control signals instructing the apparatus to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane from the mold once the polyurethane has reached a target percentage. Limitation (d) does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it employs the information provided by the judicial exceptions (the calculated percentage of the extent of cure) to control the operation of the injection molding apparatus. As explained in the specification, because the claimed controller opens the mold and ejects the

molded polyurethane at the time when the target percentage of cure is reached, the claimed controller avoids the technical problems associated with undercure and overcure, which would otherwise negatively affect the cured polyurethane’s strength and wear performance. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that limitation (d), in combination with the other claim limitations, reflects the technical advantages described in the specification. The claim as a whole thus improves upon previous controllers used in this technical field of injection molding. Further, using the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action and control the injection molding apparatus in a particular way is an “other meaningful limitation” that integrates the judicial exception into the overall control scheme and accordingly practically applies the exception, such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO). The claim is eligible.

Practice note: As illustrated in the analysis of claim 2, the “improvements” consideration requires evaluation of the specification and the claim to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgment on the merits of the asserted improvement except when a person of ordinary skill in the art, consulting the claims and specification, would clearly understand the invention does not improve technology as applicant asserts. Note that under the 2019 PEG, examiners should perform their analysis of “improvements” at Step 2A Prong Two without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. For more information on the “improvements” analysis, see FAQ G-2, MPEP 2106.05(a), and the Advanced Module training (see slides 22-25).

Claim 3 is eligible.

Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and adds an additional limitation wherein the controller further comprises a means for temperature measuring that repeatedly measures the temperature of the mold. The “means for temperature measuring …” limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation satisfies the three-prong analysis set forth in MPEP 2181. Because the means for temperature measuring limitation passes the three-prong test (thus invoking 112(f)), its BRI is limited to the structure, material or act (and equivalents thereof) disclosed and clearly linked in the specification to performance of the claimed function. See MPEP 2181. In this case, the corresponding structure is the ARCXY thermocouple, and equivalents thereof.

Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a controller, which is a mechanical and/or electrical device such as a general purpose computer in communication with sensors. Thus, the claim is to a manufacture or a machine, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).

Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility

Practice note: The same claim interpretation must be used when evaluating the claim for compliance with all requirements for patentability (e.g., eligibility, definiteness, novelty, non-obviousness, written description, etc.). Because the wherein clause was determined to provide a patentable distinction here in the eligibility analysis, it will also provide a patentable distinction elsewhere. Furthermore, the interpretation of the “means for temperature measuring” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is also the same for all requirements of patentability. Thus, for example, applicable prior art will need to show that the controller comprises an ARCXY thermocouple or an equivalent thereof. See MPEP 2111.04 for more information on wherein clauses, and MPEP 2182 and 2183 for more information on applying prior art to claim elements that are drafted in 112(f) format.

Because claim 3 includes a limitation that is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), examiners should establish the 112(f) interpretation and provide an explanation in the Office action using the appropriate form paragraphs. See, e.g., the 2018 training module on “Addressing 35 U.S.C. § 112(F) or "Means-plus-Function" Limitations in an Office Action using New Form Paragraphs,” which is available to the public at this link: https://www.uspto.gov/video/cbt/addressing35- usc112f/index.htm.

analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and thus recites the same limitations (b) and (c) as claim 1. For the reasons discussed above for claim 1, these limitations recite abstract ideas, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.

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. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2) 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. The additional elements in this claim include the controller, the ARCXY thermocouple (and equivalents thereof), and limitation (a), where it is the ARCXY thermocouple (and equivalents thereof) that repeatedly measures the temperature of the mold.

The recited controller is configured to perform limitations (a) through (c), i.e., it is the tool that is used to signal the injection molding apparatus to repeatedly obtain measurements of the temperature and perform the mathematical calculations and numeric conversions based on the measurements. But, as

described with respect to claim 1, the controller does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.

Limitation (a) obtains the temperature measurements that are performed by the ARCXY thermocouple (and equivalents thereof). This additional element represents mere data gathering (obtaining and measuring the temperature values) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the temperature values are used in limitation (b)’s mental calculation of the extent of curing completion). Although the thermocouple (or its equivalents) adds more detail to this limitation than is recited in claim 1, the additional detail (e.g., that the thermocouple is made from ARC and XY alloys) does not alter the performance of the limitation. Moreover, as discussed above for claim 1, the evaluation of whether this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong One does not take into account whether or not the limitation is well-known. Limitation (a) in the claim is thus insignificant extra- solution activity. Further, this determination precludes the ARCXY thermocouple from being considered to be a “particular machine,” because its involvement in the claim is only as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(b), particularly the third factor.

The combination of these additional elements also fails to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application of the exceptions. Whether viewed individually or in combination, the controller still represents mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer, and limitation (a) as performed by the controller in conjunction with the ARCXY thermocouple (and equivalents thereof) is insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application 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. MPEP 2106.05. As explained previously, the controller is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The other additional element is limitation (a) as performed by the ARCXY thermocouple (and equivalents thereof), which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. Under the 2019 PEG, however, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. 2019 PEG Section III(B), 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. As discussed above for claim 1, at Step 2B the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra- solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g).

Here, the recited activity of repeatedly measuring the temperature of the mold is still mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality. As disclosed in the specification, performing this activity by using a thermocouple to repeatedly measure the mold temperature is well-known. Thus, if the BRI of limitation (a) encompassed using a typical thermocouple (or other standard hardware such as an industrial thermometer) to measure the temperature, then there would be nothing in the claim that could elevate this limitation from insignificant extra-solution data gathering into a meaningful limitation that would render the claim eligible. But the BRI here does not encompass using just any thermocouple or thermometer. Instead, because the means for temperature measuring limitation invokes 112(f), limitation (a) only encompasses repeatedly measuring the mold temperature using an ARCXY thermocouple (or its equivalents). And using an ARCXY thermocouple to measure mold temperatures is not well-known. The only reference the examiner has found that discloses this type of thermocouple is a journal article written by several scientists employed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which describes the use of an ARCXY thermocouple to measure temperatures repeatedly in conjunction with spacecraft and landing vehicles used for atmospheric studies on other planets where particularly robust equipment is required. Accordingly, the examiner determines that while ARCXY thermocouples are known, mere knowledge of this type of thermocouple in the aeronautical industry does not make its use in an injection molding apparatus routine or conventional. Thus, limitation (a) as performed by the controller in conjunction with the ARCXY thermocouple was

not well-known, and this limitation is therefore no longer considered to be insignificant because the ARXCY thermocouple’s better long-term performance and durability would be beneficial in implementing the injection molding apparatus, and its faster response time means that it can measure the temperature more often than other thermocouples. As a result of using this unconventional thermocouple to perform limitation (a), the claim as a whole thus amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (Step 2B: YES). The claim is eligible.

Claim 4 is eligible.

Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4 is a controller (which is a device such as a general purpose computer in communication with sensors) for an injection molding apparatus, which is configured to perform the functions of (a) sending a control signal to the injection molding apparatus to regulate injection of uncured polyurethane and to heat the mold to a target temperature to cure the polyurethane,

(b) repeatedly obtaining measurements of the mold temperature, (c) comparing the obtained temperatures to the target temperature, and (d) maintaining temperature of the mold within two degrees of the target temperature by sending a control signal to the apparatus to selectively heat or cool the mold when the obtained temperature of the mold is more than two degrees different than the target temperature. The preamble here does not positively add limitations to the claimed controller, or further modify limitations recited in the body of the claim, and thus does not limit the claim. Instead, it indicates an intended use for the claimed controller, i.e., the controller is intended for use in controlling an injection molding apparatus.

Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a controller, which is a mechanical and/or electrical device such as a general purpose computer in communication with sensors. Thus, the claim is to a manufacture or a machine, which are 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(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. There are no nature- based product limitations in this claim (polyurethane is not a nature-based product), and thus the markedly different characteristics analysis is not performed. However, the claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.

Limitation (c) in the claim recites that the controller is configured to “compare the obtained temperatures to a target temperature.” The claimed comparison is an observation or evaluation between the obtained temperatures and the target temperature, e.g., an observation of whether the obtained temperature matches the target temperature, or whether it varies from the target temperature. This type of observation or evaluation is an act that can be practically performed in the human mind, similar to the mental thought processes that occur when a person looks at a temperature read-out of an oral baby thermometer and determines whether the baby has a fever by mentally evaluating whether a measured temperature of 101 degrees Fahrenheit is higher than the baby’s target temperature of 98.6 degrees. Such mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Note that the recitation of a controller in this claim does not negate the mental nature of this limitation because the claim here merely uses the controller as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, limitation (c) recites a concept that falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.

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. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional element of the controller being configured to perform limitations (a) through (d).

The controller is configured to carry out limitations (a) through (d), i.e., it is the tool that is used to signal the injection molding apparatus to inject uncured polyurethane and heat the mold, and to repeatedly obtain the temperature measurements and perform the comparison of the obtained temperatures with the target temperature. But the controller is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that it is a “controller”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a controller. The controller thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the controller does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).

Limitation (a) represents the environment in which the judicial exception is used, in that the controller sending control signals to fill and heat the mold provides context for how the other claimed steps fit into an overall curing process, e.g., there is not much point to repeatedly obtaining measurements of the temperature of the mold (and then to comparing the temperatures and signaling the apparatus to adjust the temperature based on that comparison) until the mold is filled and heated. This element is thus a mere indication of the field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed, like the step of administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to patients with an immune- mediated gastrointestinal disorder in Mayo, which the Supreme Court treated as merely indicating the field of use in which the recited correlations were identified. See MPEP 2106.05(h), discussing the administration step in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78 (2012) as well as other examples of field of use limitations. This element is also insignificant extra-solution activity because it merely gathers data for use in calculating the extent of curing completion. See, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), in which the Federal Circuit considered a step of presenting offers to potential customers in order to generate statistics about how the potential customers responded to the offers to be insignificant extra-solution activity because it merely gathered data for use in calculating an optimized price. See also MPEP 2106.05(g), which discusses the limitations in OIP Techs. as well as other examples of mere data gathering. Thus, limitation (a) does not integrate the judicial exceptions, but instead represents a field of use or mere data gathering (filling and heating the mold so that the temperature values can be obtained) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the temperature values are used in limitation (c)’s mental comparison of the obtained temperatures to a target temperature).

Limitation (b) requires that the controller is configured to repeatedly obtain measurements of the mold temperature. This additional element represents mere data gathering (obtaining the temperature values) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the temperature values are used in limitation (c)’s mental comparison of the obtained temperatures to a target temperature) and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitation (b) in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity.

Limitation (d) specifies that the controller is configured to send a control signal instructing the apparatus to selectively heat or cool the mold when the measured temperature is more than two degrees different than the target temperature. In other words, if the comparison indicates that the mold temperature is too low, the controller sends a signal instructing the apparatus to heat the mold, and if the comparison indicates that the mold temperature is too high, the controller sends a signal instructing the apparatus to cool the mold. Limitation (d) does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it employs the information provided by the judicial exception (the comparison of the mold temperature with the target temperature) to control the operation of the injection molding apparatus. As explained in the specification, maintaining the temperature within this set range (no more than two degrees higher or lower than the target temperature) will prevent the occurrence of undesirable side reactions that would otherwise negatively affect the cured polyurethane’s strength and wear performance. By preventing the occurrence of these side reactions, the claimed controller avoids the technical problems associated with undercure and overcure, which would otherwise negatively affect the cured polyurethane’s strength and wear performance. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that limitation (d), in combination with the other claim limitations, reflects the technical advantages described in the specification. The claim as a whole thus improves upon previous controllers used in this technical field of injection molding. Further, using the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action and control the injection molding apparatus in a particular way is an “other meaningful limitation” that integrates the judicial exception into the overall control scheme and accordingly practically applies the exception, such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO). The claim is eligible.

Practice note: As illustrated in the analysis of claim 4, the “improvements” consideration requires evaluation of the specification and the claim to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgment on the merits of the asserted improvement except when a person of ordinary skill in the art, consulting the claims and specification, would clearly understand the invention does not improve technology as applicant asserts. Note that under the 2019 PEG, examiners should perform their analysis of “improvements” at Step 2A Prong Two without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. For more information on the “improvements” analysis, see FAQ G-2, MPEP 2106.05(a), and the Advanced Module training (see slides 22-25).