DETAILED ACTION
The following non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication received on 01/16/2025 of request for continued examination.
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 .
Status of the Claims
The following is in response to the amendments and arguments filed 6/25/2025. Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-14, 16 and 21 are pending. Claims 7, 12, 15, and 17-20 have been canceled.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
Applicant’s remarks received on 06/25/2025 regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pgs. 12-13 in the Remarks of Applicant’s response that the amended claims are directed to improvements in the computer-related technology instead of an abstract idea. The claimed invention does not fall within "the mental process" or "organizing human activities" grouping of abstract ideas, in particular specific limitations of:
"popping-up a prompt window for issuing an abnormality prompt message on the user interface for reference of a user to modify error information in response to a data matching error, data not being found, or a line failure by verifying the plurality of data after uploading the plurality of data received from the user interface to the designed module", and "calling a solving engine by the user interface after a second button configured in the user interface is pressed for: setting a restriction function ......; setting a target function ......; constructing a solution module ......; obtaining a production capacity allocation result ......; drawing a plurality of bars corresponding to the plurality of lines respectively and determining a height of each of the bars on a vertical axis based on the headcount of each of the plurality of lines, so as to generate a histogram to displayed on the user interface; and presenting the number of shifts on each of the bars drawn on the histogram"
The claimed invention can not only receive data through the user interface, but also further set the first button and the second button in the user interface to trigger the corresponding action.
After the first button is pressed, the data is verified, and a prompt window pops up when an error occurs. After the second button is pressed, the solution action is performed, and then the histogram generated by a plurality of bars is superimposed and displayed in the user interface. The technical features of the claimed invention cannot be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The technical features are not mathematical concepts.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. But for the user interface, display and solving engine recited at a high level of generality, a person using observation, evaluation, judgment and pen and paper can draw the claimed histogram. The obtaining of data, calculating and setting steps amount to insignificant pre-solution activity and insignificant post-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The user interface and solving engine also amount to invoking generic computer elements merely as a tool to perform existing processes of obtaining data, calculating and presenting data or results (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Also, the claim lacks technological implementation detail to indicate there is an improvement in how the display or device operates or behaves such that it overcomes challenges or deficiencies with display/device/interface technology. Applicant’s user interface is no more improved than the examples of other user interfaces and generic displaying that did not provide meaningful limits such as in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., (Fed. Cir. 2016), SAP America v. InvestPic (Fed. Cir. 2018), University of Florida Research v. General Electric Company (Fed. Cir. 2019), FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016), Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (‘382 patent) (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indemn. Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“But receiving transmitted data over a network and displaying it to a user merely implicates purely conventional activities that are the “most basic functions of a computer” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the technical features are merely automating a manual process.
Applicant argues on pg. 13-15 in the Remarks of Applicant’s response the claims are integrated into a practical application and provide an inventive concept because of the additional elements.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the additional elements, as reasoned in the below rejection analysis, do not provide a practical application (see below reasoning). Further, the instant is a technical solution to a business problem and an improvement to the abstract idea is still and abstract idea. The efficiency and speed mentioned by Applicant is due to the inherent and known capabilities of applying the abstract idea on a computer which does not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) “Similarly, claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not provide an inventive concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As explained in the Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d at 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2015) decision (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359), “[s]teps that do nothing more than spell out what it means to ‘apply it on a computer’ cannot confer patent-eligibility.” Also, even if the mathematical functions or models relied upon by the claimed invention provide good results, these elements lie within the abstract idea itself. This type of “improvement” is therefore due to the abstract idea itself which cannot provide the inventive concept. The Federal Circuit has explained that “[i]t has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1290. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The abstract idea itself cannot supply the inventive concept, ‘no matter how groundbreaking the advance.’” (quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-14, 16, and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by applicant' s amendments.
Merely arguing that a prior art reference does not explicitly disclose the claimed characteristic is not evidence why the examiner erred in finding that a particular characteristic is inherent – see Ex parte Maeda, Appeal 2008-006267, slip op. at 3-4 (BPAI July 22 2009) Ex parte Batteux, Appeal 2007-000622 (BPAI Mar. 27, 2007).
Arguments can not substitute for evidence- see Estee Lauder Inc. V. L’Oreal. S.A. 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and Ex parte Wright Appeal 2006-000003, slip op. at 8 (BPAI Apr. 6, 2006) (informative opinion).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 9 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: specifically to claim 1, on page 3 of the claims, line 5 “To generate a histogram to displayed on” appears to be a typographical error. For the purpose of applying prior art and in the spirit of compact prosecution, it the recitation is interpreted as “to generated a histogram to be displayed on” as well as line 7 on page 3, “wherein a step of setting the restriction function” interpreted as “wherein the step of setting the restriction function” parallel independent claims 9 and 21 have the same typographical errors. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is requested to review the claims for possible typographical errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-14, 16 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claims 1, 9 and 21 include the new limitations of a designed module and popping-up a prompt window. While the claims are interpreted giving the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and terms do not need to be exactly in the specification as recited in the claims, these newly amended limitations are considered new matter.
Claims 2-6, 8, 10-11, 13-14, and 16 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1 and 9 and are therefore also rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations to calculating a line usage rate of each of the lines according to a production capacity forecast; and in response to the line usage rate is greater than a preset value, issuing an abnormality prompt message are duplicated from claim 1 and 9, respectively, are not further limiting the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 8-11, 13-14, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four categories of statutory subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In Applicant’s case, the claims pass Step 1.
However, for Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility test, independent claim 1 for example recites an abstract idea of determining a production capacity allocation (independent claims 9 and 21 recite similar limitations and claim 21 recites a more narrow limitation regarding “set a target function” to include “wherein the minimum production cost comprises line headcount minimization or line number of shifts minimization” which is considered part of the abstract idea). The limitations that describe an abstract idea are indicated in bold below using independent claim 1:
A planning method for production capacity allocation, executed through a processor, the planning method comprising:
providing a user interface to obtain a plurality of data, wherein the plurality of data comprise a plurality of related parameters of a plurality of lines relative to a plurality of models, an available production capacity of each of the lines, an order requirement corresponding to the models, and a production capacity target,
popping-up a prompt window for issuing an abnormality prompt message on the user interface for reference of a user to modify error information in response to a data matching error, data not being found, or a line failure by verifying the plurality of data after uploading the plurality of data received from the user interface to the designed module; and
setting a restriction function based on the plurality of related parameters of the plurality of lines relative to the plurality of models, the available production capacity of each of the lines, and the order requirement corresponding to the models;
setting a target function based on the production capacity target, wherein the production capacity target comprises a minimum production cost;
constructing a solution module based on the restriction function and the target function;
obtaining a production capacity allocation result through the solution module, wherein the production capacity allocation result comprises a line corresponding to a specified model, a headcount of each of the lines, and a number of shifts of each of the lines;
drawing a plurality of bars corresponding to the plurality of lines respectively and determining a height of each of the bars on a vertical axis based on the headcount of each of the plurality of lines, so as to generate a histogram to displayed on the user interface;
presenting the number of shifts on each of the bars drawn on the histogram wherein a step of setting the restriction function further comprises:
calculating a line usage rate of each of the lines according to a production capacity forecast and in response to the line usage rate is greater than a preset value, issuing another abnormality prompt message;
setting a cluster label for each of the lines, wherein the lines belonging to a same cluster label are allowed to open a work shift together;
setting a production allocation quantity produced on each of the lines corresponding to the requested specified model to not exceed a production capacity forecast of the specified model, and a sum of a plurality of production allocation quantities of all of the lines corresponding to the requested specified model to be equal to the production capacity forecast;
setting a line usage rate sum of the lines belonging to the same cluster label; and
setting to select a largest one among a plurality of headcounts on the lines belonging to the same cluster label as a headcount representative representing the cluster label.
The limitations indicated above fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity because the determining and presenting of the production capacity allocation amounts to planning how a workforce will be utilized. This is interpreted as falling under the subgrouping related to managing personal behavior and doing so to minimize production costs further relates the claims to fundamental economic principles. The limitations also fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of mental processes. If a claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer elements, then it is still in the mental processes category. The claimed steps of setting a function, setting a function and constructing a solution based on the functions and after obtaining a plurality of data, as well as obtaining a result, drawing a histogram and presenting the histogram cover performance in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. The limitations also fall under the mathematical concepts grouping as the limitations of setting a restriction and target function and constructing a solution module and obtaining a result through the solution module and calculating, and setting steps relate to mathematical relationships, calculations and modeling to determine the allocation result. Applicant’s specification details the various functions used (see for example paragraphs 0051, 0052, 0059, 0064, 0066) and notes in paragraph [0023] “The solution model 133 uses a restriction function, a target function, a decision variable, etc. designed by a mathematical model to derive solutions.” The recitation of a processor and module do not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. For example, with the telephone unit and server in the TLI Communications decision, the court noted that even though a claim may recite concrete, tangible components, these components do not exclude the claim from the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry (See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC No. 15-1372 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)).
For Step 2A Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility test, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements in independent claim 1 of a processor, module, solving engine, display, and user interface (also a storage device and database in independent claims 9 and 21) to implement the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers or merely using computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) regarding mere instructions to implement on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool. For example, the user interface is recited at a high level of generality to perform an existing process of receiving data (“providing a user interface to obtain a plurality of data”) and transmitting data (“histogram to displayed on the user interface”). See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process e.g., to receive, store or transmit data. These additional elements do not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., execution on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(h) regarding generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Use of the processor, module, display, solving engine and user interface in the claim at such a high level of generality does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, the step of popping up a prompt window, verifying data, obtaining a plurality of data by providing a user interface, calling, setting and constructing amounts to mere data gathering while displaying a histogram on the user interface and amount to generic output and all are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) including (3)Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering) and the Office’s July 2024 AI SME memo with respect to ineligible claim 2 of Example 47 (limitations “(a) receiving, at a computer, continuous training data” and “(f) outputting the anomaly data from the trained ANN” are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). As explained in the Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d at 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2015) decision (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359), “[s]teps that do nothing more than spell out what it means to ‘apply it on a computer’ cannot confer patent-eligibility.” Thus, the generic computer elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. When considering the claim as a whole and how the additional elements individually and in combination are used, the additional elements do not reflect integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely using computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally linking to a field of use or particular technological environment. Applicant’s originally filed specification (see Figs. 1, 3 and paragraphs 0020 - any electronic apparatus with a computing function, such as a smart phone, a tablet computer, a notebook computer, a personal computer, and a server) supports this conclusion with its disclosure of general purpose computers to perform the abstract idea. For the obtaining data and displaying setting, calculating steps considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, these have been reevaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional based on various court decisions such as Symantec, OIP Techs., and buySAFE (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) which convey that mere receiving or transmitting of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. Also, the user interface in Applicant’s claims for obtaining data and displaying results is viewed as similar to the generic displaying recognized in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., (Fed. Cir. 2016), SAP America v. InvestPic (Fed. Cir. 2018) and University of Florida Research v. General Electric Company (Fed. Cir. 2019) as well as the generic user interfaces in FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (‘382 patent) (Fed. Cir. 2015) and the concept of remotely accessing and retrieving user-specified information via a mobile interface in Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indemn. Co.,850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“But receiving transmitted data over a network and displaying it to a user merely implicates purely conventional activities that are the “most basic functions of a computer” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). In these cases, the displaying and interfaces were generic computer elements that did not provide meaningful limitations to render the claims patent-eligible. Applicant’s user interface similarly does not offer a meaningful limitation. When considering the claim as a whole and how the additional elements individually and in combination are used, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims include the limitations of the independent claim and therefore recite the same abstract idea. Accordingly, the analysis and rationale discussed above regarding the independent claim and abstract idea also apply to the dependent claims. Also, the dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to a more narrow abstract idea by: further limiting the parameters, available production capacity, order requirement and restriction function (claim 2, 10), further limiting the minimum production cost (claim 4), further limiting the production capacity target (claim 5, 13), including a tolerance factor in the restriction function and setting a corresponding penalty value in the target function (claim 6, 14), including further steps for setting the restriction function (claims 8, 16) . Such narrowing creates a more narrow abstract idea but does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Additional elements recited in the dependent claims include generic processing components/functionality recited at a high-level of generality and mere data gathering (claims 3, 11 – obtaining data - interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. and OIP Techs) regarding retrieving or transmitting data over a network such as for data gathering) which do not impose any meaningful limits to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide for an inventive concept.
Applicant’s claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-11 and 13-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goulimis US 2008/0172280 A1 (hereinafter “Goulimis”) in view of Kobayashi et al US 2020/0413583 A1 (hereinafter “Kobayashi”) and further in view of Masoud et al US 2019/0354641 A1 (hereinafter “Masoud”).
Regarding claim 1, Goulimis teaches a planning method for production capacity allocation, executed through a processor, the planning method comprising:
displaying a user interface by a designed module on a display, where the user interface comprises a plurality of selectable fields, receiving a plurality of data in the selectable fields on the display, and uploading the plurality of data to the designed module after a first button configured in the user interface is pressed(Fig. 10, 11, 0200; Fig. 6, 0075, 0076, 0138 – inputs to demand schedule optimization; 0098 – process the inputs; 0100 – user interface), wherein the plurality of data comprise a plurality of related parameters of a plurality of lines (Fig. 8, 0135 – manufacturing lines considered in determining a manufacturing schedule) relative to a plurality of models (Fig. 8, 0135 – manufacturing products considered in determining a manufacturing schedule; Fig. 5 example of multiple products per machine/line), an available production capacity of each of the lines (0137 – current status of production line considered in determining a manufacturing schedule 0135; 0088 – production rates; 0091 – production capability), an order requirement corresponding to the models (0075, 0076, 0078, Fig. 6, 8, 0135, 0140 – firm orders by customers considered in determining a manufacturing schedule), and a production capacity target (0139, 0141 – forecasted demand considered in determining a manufacturing schedule 0135, Fig. 8);
popping-up a prompt window for issuing an abnormality prompt message on the user interface for reference of a user to modify error information in response to a data matching error, data not being found, or a line failure by verifying the plurality of data after uploading the plurality of data received from the user interface to the designed module (0142-0145 – penalties; meeting on time may be considered to be within a certain number of days either side of the actual intended delivery date; 0103-0113, 0120 – penalties, above and below targets; pop up prompt windows are notoriously well known in the art)
and calling a solving engine by the user interface after a second button configured in the user interface is pressed (Fig. 10, 11, 0100 – user interface) for (0156 – after the data is assembled and optimization parameters are defined, optimization process starts, 0163, Fig. 10 – demand schedule optimization):
setting a restriction function (Fig. 6, 0075, 0138 – inputs to demand schedule optimization; 0098 – process the inputs) based on the plurality of related parameters of a plurality of lines (Fig. 8, 0135 – manufacturing lines considered in determining a manufacturing schedule) relative to the plurality of models (Fig. 8, 0135 – manufacturing products considered in determining a manufacturing schedule; Fig. 5 example of multiple products per machine/line), the available production capacity of each of the lines (0137 – current status of production line considered in determining a manufacturing schedule 0135; 0088 – production rates; 0091 – production capability), and the order requirement corresponding to the models (0075, 0078, Fig. 6, 8, 0135, 0140 – firm orders by customers considered in determining a manufacturing schedule);
setting a target function based on the production capacity target (0139, 0141 – forecasted demand considered in determining a manufacturing schedule 0135, Fig. 8), wherein the production capacity target comprises a minimum production cost (0116 – minimize costs considered in determining a manufacturing schedule 0135, Fig. 8);
constructing a solution module based on the restriction function and the target function (Fig. 8, 0144 – schedule processor implements the optimization technique);
obtaining a production capacity allocation result through the solution module (Fig. 8, 0146, 0147 – demand schedule optimization controller generates output including manufacturing schedule for implementation by the production lines), wherein the production capacity allocation result comprises a line corresponding to a specified model (Fig. 8, 0146, 0147 – demand schedule optimization controller generates output including manufacturing schedule for implementation by the production lines; 0135 – products and lines; Fig. 4, 0066-0068, Fig. 5, 0070, 0071 - examples of scheduling) (see Kobayashi below for “a headcount of each of the lines, and a number of shifts of each of the lines”).
(see Masoud below for “drawing a plurality of bars corresponding to the plurality of lines respectively and determine a height of each of the bars on a vertical axis based on the headcount of each of the plurality of lines, so as to generate a histogram to displayed on the user interface; and presenting the number of shifts on each of the bars drawn on the histogram”); and
wherein the step of setting the restriction function further comprises: calculating a line usage rate of each of the lines according to a production capacity forecast (0139, 0141 – forecasted demand; 0088, 0089 – production rates; 0091 – production capability; 0135 – lines and products; 0075, 0078 – order per SKU, Fig. 6, 8, 0135, 0140 – firm orders by customers; 0088, 0089 – production rates; 0091 – production capability; 0135 – lines and products); and in response to the line usage rate is greater than a preset value, issuing an abnormality prompt message (0142-0145 – penalties; meeting on time may be considered to be within a certain number of days either side of the actual intended delivery date; 0103-0113, 0120 – penalties, above and below targets);
setting a production allocation quantity produced on each of the lines corresponding to the 25 requested specified model to not exceed a production capacity forecast of the specified model (0139, 0141 – forecasted demand; 0088, 0089 – production rates; 0091 – production capability; 0135 – lines and products), and a sum of the production allocation quantities of all of the lines corresponding to the requested specified model to be equal to the production capacity forecast (0139, 0141 – forecasted demand; 0088, 0089 – production rates; 0091 – production capability; 0135 – lines and products; 0075, 0078 – order per SKU, Fig. 6, 8, 0135, 0140 – firm orders by customers); setting a line usage rate sum of the lines…(0088, 0089 – production rates; 0091 – production capability; 0135 – lines and products). Goulimis does not teach: setting a cluster label for each of the lines, wherein the lines belonging to a same cluster label are allowed to open a work shift together (interpreted as grouping lines together), usage rate of lines belonging together (interpreted as showing headcount) and setting to select a largest one among a plurality of headcounts on the lines belonging to the same cluster label as a headcount representative representing the cluster label (interpreted as showing highest headcount). However, Kobayashi teaches calculating workloads and creating workload tables that link workloads, operators and time blocks for the production lines (see Figs. 5-9, 0029-0031, 0033). Kobayashi shows for example in Fig. 6 the clustering of first, second and third lines with corresponding shifts and headcounts. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify Goulimis’ teachings of generating manufacturing schedules associated with production lines to include the generating of the workload tables for the production lines taught by Kobayashi because this allows for a person to check whether operator assignments for the production lines are appropriate as suggested by Kobayashi (0031). This can help in deciding whether any adjustments may be needed.
Goulimis does not teach, with respect to the generated manufacturing schedule (interpreted as production capacity allocation result), a headcount of each of the lines, and a number of shifts of each of the lines. However, in analogous art of creating workload tables with respect to production jobs of production lines (Abstract), Kobayashi teaches calculating workloads and creating workload tables that link workloads, operators and time blocks for the production lines (see Figs. 5-9, 0029-0031, 0033). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify Goulimis’ teachings of generating manufacturing schedules associated with production lines to include the generating of the workload tables for the production lines taught by Kobayashi because this allows for a person to check whether operator assignments for the production lines are appropriate as suggested by Kobayashi (0031). This can help in deciding whether any adjustments may be needed.
Goulimis does not teach “draw a plurality of bars corresponding to the plurality of lines respectively and determine a height of each of the bars on a vertical axis based on the headcount of each of the plurality of lines, so as to generate a histogram to displayed on the user interface; and present the number of shifts on each of the bars drawn on the histogram”. However, Masoud in analogous art provides teachings related to managing labor and equipment and maximizing production output of a facility such as a manufacturing facility ([0005], [0006]). Masoud teaches displaying a histogram of labor quantity per vertical bars illustrative of “lines” as the bars are for different jobs (see Fig. 13, [0080], [0045]). While Fig. 13 does not present a number of shifts on each bar, Fig. 11 illustrates the concept of presenting a number on each bar and Masoud provides further teachings about the shifts of laborers such as being a single 8-hour shift (see [0045], [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify Goulimis’ teachings of generating manufacturing schedules associated with production lines to include the generating of a histogram of labor, lines and shifts using the teachings of Masoud because use of such visualizations offer faster comprehension of the underlying information.
Regarding claim 2, Goulimis in view of Kobayashi and Masoud teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above from which this claim depends and Goulimis further teaches: the planning method for production capacity allocation according to claim 1, wherein the related parameters comprise (see Kobayashi below for “a headcount”), a takt time (0048, 0049, 0053 – time, length of the production cycle), and an output of each of the lines corresponding to different models (0137 – current status of production line considered in determining a manufacturing schedule 0135; 0088 – production rates; 0091 – production capability; 0135 – lines and products, Fig. 5 example of multiple products per machine/line), the available production capacity comprises a production site to which each of the line belongs (Fig. 8, 0135 – production lines located at one or more sites for manufacturing products), a number of pilot run days (0056 – 7 day, 24 hour production), and a number of working days (0056 – 7 day, 24 hour production), the order requirement comprises the requested specified model (0075, 0078, Fig. 6, 8, 0135, 0140 – firm orders by customers) and a corresponding production capacity forecast (0139, 0141 – forecasted demand considered in determining a manufacturing schedule 0135, Fig. 8), and the restriction function comprises a line distribution restriction, an output restriction, and a line usage rate restriction (0016, 0088, 0089 – production rates for each item; 0091 – production capability by exception; 0092 – pre-defined blocks; 0094 – frozen section). Goulimis does not teach the headcount element. However, Kobayashi teaches maintaining and using a table of operators assigned to production lines (Fig. 3, 0026). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify Goulimis’ teachings of generating manufacturing schedules associated with production lines to include keeping track of operators assigned to production lines from the teachings of Kobayashi because this allows for the creation of the workload and operator scheduling as suggested by Kobayashi (0030).
Regarding claim 3, Goulimis in view of Kobayashi and Masoud teaches the elements of claim 2 as shown above from which this claim depends and Goulimis further teaches: the planning method for production capacity allocation according to claim 2, wherein before setting the restriction function, the planning method further comprises: obtaining a project, operation summary data, pilot run data, and productivity data via a user interface or a database; obtaining the requested specified model from the project, and obtaining the production capacity forecast corresponding to the specified model from the operation summary data based on the specified model; obtaining a line correspondingly used by the specified model (see Kobayashi below for “and the headcount from the operation summary data”), and calculating the corresponding takt time and the output based on the line correspondingly used by the specified model (see Kobayashi below for “and the headcount”); obtaining a productivity and the number of working days corresponding to each of the models from the productivity data; and obtaining the number of pilot run days corresponding to the line correspondingly used by the specified model from the pilot run data (input/obtain data for the demand schedule optimization – Fig. 6, 0075-0078; 0048, 0049, 0053 – time, length of the production cycle; 0137 – current status of production line considered in determining a manufacturing schedule 0135; 0088 – production rates; 0091 – production capability; 0135 – lines and products, Fig. 5 example of multiple products per machine/line; 0056 – 7 day, 24 hour production; 0075, 0078 – order per SKU, Fig. 6, 8, 0135, 0140 – firm orders by customers; 0139, 0141 – forecasted demand considered in determining a manufacturing schedule 0135, Fig. 8; 0016, 0088, 0089 – production rates for each item; 0091 – production capability by exception; 0092 – pre-defined blocks; 0094 – frozen section). Goulimis does not teach the headcount element. However, Kobayashi teaches maintaining and using a table of operators assigned to production lines (Fig. 3, 0026). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify Goulimis’ teachings of generating manufacturing schedules associated with production lines to include keeping track of operators assigned to production lines from the teachings of Kobayashi because this allows for the creation of the workload and operator scheduling as suggested by Kobayashi (0030).
Regarding claim 5, Goulimis in view of Kobayashi and Masoud teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above from which this claim depends and Goulimis further teaches: The planning method for production capacity allocation according to claim 1, wherein the production capacity target further comprises at least one of a highest production efficiency and a highest per capita unit production (0060 – objectives: minimizing setup or switchover costs (efficiency); most cost-effective manufacturing resource).
Regarding claim 6, Goulimis in view of Kobayashi and Masoud teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above from which this claim depends and Goulimis further teaches: The planning method for production capacity allocation according to claim 1, further comprising: introducing at least one tolerance factor into the restriction function, and setting a corresponding penalty value in the target function (0142-0145 – penalties; meeting on time may be considered to be within a certain number of days either side of the actual intended delivery date; 0103-0113, 0120 – penalties, above and below targets).
Regarding claim 8, Goulimis in view of Kobayashi and Masoud teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above from which this claim depends and Goulimis further teaches the planning method for production capacity allocation according to claim 1, wherein the step of setting the restriction function further comprises: calculating a line usage rate of each of the lines according to a production capacity forecast (0139, 0141 – forecasted demand; 0088, 0089 – production rates; 0091 – production capability; 0135 – lines and products; 0075, 0078 – order per SKU, Fig. 6, 8, 0135, 0140 – firm orders by customers; 0088, 0089 – production rates; 0091 – production capability; 0135 – lines and products); and in response to the line usage rate is greater than a preset value, issuing an abnormality prompt message (0142-0145 – penalties; meeting on time may be considered to be within a certain number of days either side of the actual intended delivery date; 0103-0113, 0120 – penalties, above and below targets).
Claims 9-11, 13-14, and 16, directed to the planning apparatus performing the planning method of claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, recite limitations substantially similar to those recited in claims 1-3, 5-6, 8. Since Goulimis in view of Kobayashi and Masoud teaches the elements of claims 1-3, 5-6, 8 and an apparatus “comprising: a storage device, comprising a database, wherein the database stores a plurality of related parameters (Goulimis Fig. 10, 11, Fig. 6, 0075, 0076, 0138 – inputs to demand schedule optimization; 0098 – process the inputs) of a plurality of lines (Goulimis Fig. 8, 0135 – manufacturing lines considered in determining a manufacturing schedule) relative to a plurality of models (Goulimis Fig. 8, 0135 – manufacturing products considered in determining a manufacturing schedule; Fig. 5 example of multiple products per machine/line), an available production capacity of each of the lines (Goulimis 0137 – current status of production line considered in determining a manufacturing schedule 0135; 0088 – production rates; 0091 – production capability), and an order requirement corresponding to the models (Goulimis 0075, 0078, Fig. 6, 8, 0135, 0140 – firm orders by customers considered in determining a manufacturing schedule); and a processor, coupled to the storage device, wherein the processor is configured to (Goulimis Fig. 10, 11, 0020)” to perform the method of claim 1, the same art and rationale applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8 (the planning method) also apply to claims 9-11, 13-14, and 16.
Claim 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goulimis US 2008/0172280 A1 (hereinafter “Goulimis”) in view of Kobayashi et al US 2020/0413583 A1 (hereinafter “Kobayashi”), further in view of Masoud et al US 2019/035461 A1 (hereinafter “Masoud”) and further in view of Cargille et al US 2003/0050817 A1 (hereinafter “Cargille”).
Regarding claims 4 and 21, Goulimis in view of Kobayashi and Masoud teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above from which claim 1 depends (and claim 21 recites a planning apparatus with related method of claim 1) and Goulimis further teaches: the planning method for production capacity allocation according to claim 1, wherein the minimum production cost (0116 – minimize costs considered in determining a manufacturing schedule 0135, Fig. 8). Goulimis does not teach: comprises line headcount minimization or line number of shifts minimization. However, Cargille teaches selecting capacity and production attribute values that minimize the total production cost needed to cover expected demand or uncertainty for one or more products (0073) in which capacity attributes for a given manufacturing line include number of shifts (0065). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify Goulimis’ teachings of minimizing cost when generating manufacturing schedules associated with production lines to include consideration of the number of shifts as taught by Cargille because as suggested by Cargille various attributes including with respect to shifts can impact production costs (0065, 0073).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Devarakonda et al US 2020/0210947 A1 Controlling Inventory in a Supply Chain (0171 – capacity metric includes histogram bars indicating utilization of a capacity of the production resource).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Kelly Campen whose telephone number is (571)272-6740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-3pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
Kelly S. Campen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691