DETAILED ACTION
This final office action is in response to amendments filed on 8/6/25.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Below is an analysis in accordance with the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Process found in MPEP 2106(III).
Claim 1: An information management system comprising:
a storage unit configured to store an integrated management database including a bill of materials (BOM), a bill of process (BOP), and a bill of equipment (BOE), each of the bill of materials, the bill of process, and the bill of equipment including information and a designation of an approver for included the information;
one or more memories storing one or more programs; and
one or more processors configured to access the one or more memories and execute the one or more programs such that:
at least one processor of the one or more processors implements a search module configured to, in response to a change to a production site, search for an item among the information, the item corresponding to a change content that indicates a change to the information in the integrated management database, and search for the approver of the item, wherein the change to the production site includes a change in a control device of the production site;
at least one processor of the one or more processors implements an approval request module configured to request the approver to approve a reflection of the change content in the integrated management database; and
at least one processor of the one or more processors implements an update module configured to reflect the change content in the corresponding item of the integrated management database in response to the approval from the approver and
generate a new work instruction sheet based on the changed integrated management database.
Step 1: The claim recites a system. Thus, the claim is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Limitation (b) in claim 1 recites “search for an item among the information, the item corresponding to a change content that indicates a change to the information in the integrated management database, and search for the approver of the item, wherein the change to the production site includes a change in a control device of the production site”. Limitation (c) in claim 1 recites “request the approver to approve a reflection of the change content in the integrated management database”. Limitation (d) in claim 1 recites “reflect the change content in the corresponding item of the integrated management database in response to the approval from the approver”. As is evident from applicant’s disclosure, the claimed searching for an item corresponding to a change content and an approver of the item in a database, requesting approval of change content, and reflecting the change content in the database fall into the “Mental Processes” group of abstract ideas because the recited determinations are simple enough that they can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid to help them complete the recited calculation or observation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses general purpose computer as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract idea, the claim additionally recites element (e) generate a new work instruction sheet based on the changed integrated management database. This additional element represents mere data display (generate a new work instruction sheet) that is necessary for the use of the recited judicial exception. Accordingly, elements € is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim additionally recites using a processor and associated memory to perform elements (b), (c) and (d). The processor (and associated memory) is merely a generic processor which is recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, the processor (and associated memory) is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. Element (a) merely describes the type of data in the database. As such the limitations are nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the environment of process control systems. Therefore, the processor in elements (b), (c) and (d) and the database in element (a) do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. Additional element (e), as explained previously, is mere data display and for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. Thus, limitation (e) does not amount to significantly more. As explained previously, the processor (and associated memory) 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. Examiner takes official notice that processors and associated memories were well-known and conventionally used before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to analyze input data and generate output data based on the input data.
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. The claim is not eligible.
Claims 2-20 are merely just extensions or variations of the judicial exception, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-10, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellville, US Patent Application Publication no. 20110082569 and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art [AAPA]1, in view of Matsunaga et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2013/0332211 [Matsunaga].
Regarding claims 1, 8, 9 and 15, Bellville discloses an information management system comprising:
An information management system comprising:
a storage unit configured to store a database including designation of an approver for included information [profile database stores profiles that each include associations between each of a plurality of parameters in a configuration database and whether approval by the configuration engineer is required for modification in a configuration database of each of the parameters, Figure 3 and paragraphs 0032, 0043 and 0045];
one or more memories storing one or more programs; and
one or more processors configured to access the one or more memories and execute the one or more programs such that:
at least one processor of the one or more processors implements a search module configured to, in response to a change to a production site, search for an item among the information, the item corresponding to a change content that indicates a change to the information in the integrated management database, and search for the approver of the item, wherein the change to the production site includes a change in a control device of the production site [detecting changes to process control parameter values and determining the changed parameters are associated with a requirement for configuration manager approval before uploading the changed parameter to a configuration database, paragraphs 0029-0032, 0061 and 0062];
at least one processor of the one or more processors implements an approval request module configured to request the approver to approve a reflection of the change content in the integrated management database [approval requests corresponding to changed parameters are provided to the configuration engineer via a user interface, Figure 5B and paragraphs 0045 and 0051-0052]; and
at least one processor of the one or more processors implements an update module configured to reflect the change content in the corresponding item of the integrated management database in response to the approval from the approver [parameter changes in the configuration database are applied upon configuration engineer approval, paragraphs 0050-0051].
Bellville discloses associating parameters in a manufacturing system with indications of whether configuration engineer approval is needed to change parameters in a configuration database. Bellville does not disclose that information related to a bill of materials (BOM), a bill of process (BOP), and a bill of equipment (BOE) is included in the database. AAPA discloses that known production or manufacturing systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention were digitized such that component, process and equipment line information, such as bills of materials, bills of process, and bills of equipment were stored in an information management system [page 1]. Since storing information related to production or manufacturing bills of materials, bills of process, and bills of equipment in information management systems was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Bellville teachings to known production systems that include information management systems that digitally store information related to bills of materials, bills of process, and bills of equipment in order to prevent unauthorized or unintended parameter changes.
Bellville and AAPA do not disclose generating a new work instruction sheet in response to changes in the integrated management database. Like Bellville and AAPA, Matsunaga discloses a system in which process-related information updates may be applied and verified during actual operation. Matsunaga further discloses that new (updated) work instruction sheets are generated in response to verified changes to process-related information during actual operation [paragraph 0119]. Since it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for production systems to generate new work instruction sheets in response to verified changes to process-related information during actual operation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Bellville and AAPA teachings to known production systems that use work instruction sheets to control performance of production equipment.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 16, Bellville further discloses that the change to the production site includes a change content performed on a control device of the production site [process control parameters, paragraph 0029].
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 20, Bellville and AAPA do not disclose logging parameter change requests that were disapproved by the configuration engineer. Examiner takes official notice that manufacturing systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention conventionally logged parameter change requests and their statuses to allow for subsequent system or employee performance audits. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to log the change requests and their status in Bellville in order to allow for subsequent system or employee performance audits.
Regarding claim 7, Bellville further discloses that the storage unit stores a second database in addition to the database, and the change to the production site or the change to be reflected in the production site is temporarily reflected in the second database and reflected from the second database to the first database in response to the approval from the approver [a runtime database stores changes that have been made to process control parameters and the stored changes are uploaded to a configuration database upon configuration engineer approval, paragraphs 0029-0032].
Claims 3-5, 11-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellville, US Patent Application Publication no. 20110082569, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art [AAPA], and Matsunaga et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2013/0332211 [Matsunaga], in view of Bacus et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2021/0136035 [Bacus]2.
Regarding claims 3-5, 11-13 and 17-19, Bellville, AAPA and Matsunaga do not disclose that the parameter changes are suggested based on the result of automated system monitoring. Like Bellville and AAPA, Bacus discloses a manufacturing system in which parameter changes may be requested by system personal. Bacus further discloses an asset maintenance system that monitors system operation, performs diagnostics and suggests parameter adjustments to improve efficiency [paragraph 0029]. Since it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include automated system monitoring functionality in manufacturing systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include automated system monitoring functionality in Bellville, AAPA and Matsunaga in order to suggest parameter changes that would lead to better efficiency. Bellville, AAPA and Bacus do not specifically disclose that the automated system monitoring function estimates manufacturing tendencies or performs manufacturing simulations using a model. Examiner takes official notice that manufacturing systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention conventionally included tendency estimation and predictive modelling simulation functionalities to control manufacturing operating parameters. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include conventional tendency estimation and predictive modelling simulation functionalities in the Bellville, AAPA, Matsunaga and Bacus manufacturing system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 PAUL B YANCHUS III whose telephone number is (571)272-3678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached at (571) 272-3667. 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.
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 November 14, 2025
1 Bellville and AAPA were previously cited.
2 Bacus was previously cited.