DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 06/17/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12-14 have been amended.
Claims 2, 4, 9, and 11 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 06/17/2025 with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 112, some issues are resolved but also new issues have been raised as described in the rejections below. Applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to link structure to elements invoking 112(f) are unpersuasive as described below.
On pg. 7-8 of the Remarks, Applicant essentially argues regarding rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as allegedly failing to link any structure for the claimed "data pre-processing module", "scheduling module", and "data post-processing module (emphasis original):
“Applicant respectfully submits that the originally filed specification provides express and implicit support that the "data pre-processing module", "scheduling module", and "data post-processing module" are computing systems of a processing device, including processors (computers) and software modules implemented on a general-purpose computer or dedicated hardware. For example, the specification states on page 26 that "The software may include a computer program, a piece of code, an instruction, or some combination thereof, to independently or uniformly instruct or configure the processing device to operate as desired. Software and data may be embodied permanently or temporarily in any type of machine, component, physical or pseudo equipment, computer storage medium or device, or in a propagated signal wave capable of providing instructions or data to or being interpreted by the processing device.”
When construing claim limitations invoking 112(f) it is required to identify the corresponding structure in the written description of the patent that performs each recited function. The Federal Circuit has instructed that the “[s]tructure disclosed in the specification qualifies as ‘corresponding structure’ if the intrinsic evidence clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Williamson v. Citrix Online (Fed. Cir. 2015). Applicant emphasizes AppSpec’s (pg. 26) description of “the processing device” (which is the first appearance of the term in AppSpec) and its surround description of general-purpose software, but there is no discernable link between the contents of the paragraph and any of the functions recited in the claim. Applicant provides further emphasized quotations from the preceding paragraph’s description (AppSpec pg. 25, li. 14-25) of computer readable media, a paragraph which begins: “The methods according to the above-described examples…”; again there is nothing in the paragraph’s description that clearly links or associates any of the embodiments of structure to any of the functions recited in the claim.
Assuming arguendo the indicated portions of AppSpec were linked to the recited functions, the structure would still be inadequate because "[m]ere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)" (MPEP 2181(II)(B)). AppSpec does not provide algorithms corresponding to the various recited functions e.g. of receive scheduling target data comprising…; and/or pre-process the scheduling target data to generate a multi-machine list comprising two or more single machine lists or extract a previous scheduling result prestored in a database recited in the claims.
Lastly there is no clear correspondence between the function of overwriting the respective processing time for performing the process with the predetermined machine with the extracted previous scheduling result and the functions found in the written description. AppSpec does describe an “overwriting module” (AppSpec pg. 15, li. 21- pg. 16, li. 6), but its function is described as occurring prior to “processing time setting module may retrieve previous scheduling data” as part of the “data post-processing module” (in an alternative embodiment where the “data post-processing module” comprises the “scheduling module”?).
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2025 with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 101 to have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 10 of the Remarks, Applicant essentially argues (emphasis original):
“Applicant respectfully notes that the claim limitations, as currently recited, cannot, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind, even if aided with pen and paper. The claims are directed to continuous global optimization scheduling for servers (see page 1 of the originally filed specification). In short, a person cannot mentally continuously update scheduling target data according to a continuously determined scheduling result across all possible cases as, by the time a person had mentally completed the pre-processing and scheduling procedure, the opportunity for assigning the task to an available predetermined machine would be long over (processes cannot wait seconds, let alone minutes/hours, for a person to manually/mentally (and continuously) generate scheduling results according to the continuously received scheduling target data in the manner required. In other words, even though it might be theoretically possible for a person to complete some of the claimed steps mentally, it is not practical to complete all steps within the claimed context.”
The underlying premise of Applicant’s argument, that the human mind is ‘to slow’, has repeatedly been found unpersuasive by the courts:
“Trinity also argues that humans could not mentally engage in the "same claimed process" because they could not perform "nanosecond comparisons" … asserted claims can be directed to an abstract idea even if the claims require generic computer components or require operations that a human could not perform as quickly as a compute” Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc (Fed. Cir. 2023).
“claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved. We have consistently held, in the context of computer-assisted methods, that such claims are not made patent eligible under § 101 simply because they speed up human activity” Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2025)
Applicant’s argument is also inconsistent with the context set forth in AppSpec’s description where every exemplary task/process duration is on the scale of days (e.g. “when the performance of the machine assigned to a task is 50% and a processing time of the task is 3 days, the scheduling module may set the processing time to 6 days”), which provides ample time for the scheduling process to be performed mentally; and the only use of the scheduling result is to store it or to present it for human analysis (e.g. “data post-processing module 130 may allow the user to clearly identify how the process is performed by visualizing and providing the scheduling result to the user through a visualization module” (¶0074), demonstrating the interpretation of the claim as being directed to human/mental analysis is consistent with the scope of the invention as described in the written description.
On pg. 11 of the Remarks, Applicant further argues:
“Notwithstanding the above, and assuming, arguendo, that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, Applicant submits that the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of said exception. A device for multi-machine and performance-based continuous production planning global optimization scheduling offers on its face a technical improvement over currently available scheduling techniques and systems, as explained in at least pages 1-4 of Applicant's originally filed specification. In short, Applicant offers a system and device which improve multi-machine task scheduling, and more specifically a new architecture and process for optimizing/solving a JSSP in the manufacturing, production, computer and science fields.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. None of the identified problems are technical in nature, for example:
“in the actual product manufacturing and production field, a company may determine objectively or subjectively the performance of the machine. The performance of the machine may change a processing time of a process to be scheduled and may affect a scheduling result. When this factor is not considered…in case of a machine with low performance, a task may be finished later than expected and the next scheduled process may be affected” (pg. 4).
Whether the schedule was created by computer or by hand the described inefficiencies resulting from misjudged task durations apply equally; and Applicant’s proffered solution to update the stored duration estimate to account for recently observed task completion durations would similarly benefit both. Thus, neither the problem nor the solution are ‘technological’ within the meaning of Abstract idea analysis.
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/17/2025 with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are unpersuasive and/or moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as described below.
On pg. 13 Applicant essentially argues:
“Applicant respectfully notes that defining a function cap(J) which includes a list associating each job with a machine capable of performing that respective job is not logically equivalent to "a multi-machine list comprising two or more single machine lists, each single machine list comprising a single machine that can perform the process and a processing time for performing the process with the respective single machine, the multi-machine list further comprising a processing order for the respective single machines", as currently recited. In short, Oetsch does not suggest or disclose that cap(J) includes processing times, nor a processing order for the respective machines.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the mapping is unreasonable. Examiner notes the amended limitation "a multi-machine list comprising two or more single machine lists” is rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) for lacking written description support as the language does not appear therein and conflicts with the other description provided. AppSpec pg. 11-12 describes how “single machine lists” can be derived (‘classified’ into?) from a “multi-machine list”, but this is not equivalent to the multi-machine list “comprising” single machine lists in the same way that it is incorrect to say an alphabet “comprises” words. Examiner is maintaining the interpretation derived from FIG. 6 and Applicant’s as-filed Specification (AppSpec) and pg. 11, li. 20-25 and pg. 24, li. 23-25, arranged below for clarity:
“tasks “0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7” and
machines “0,2 / 1,5 / 7 / 5 / 2,3 / 1 / 4 / 6”
are included in the multi-machine list.”
PNG
media_image1.png
451
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“classifying eight single machine lists according to eight cases”
AppSpec further discloses it is “a multi-machine list listing the performable multiple machines” and implicitly that the listed machines are the “machines that may perform a task”; although ambiguous, Examiner maintains the interpretation that “performable machines” refers to the ‘machines that can perform’ the respectively listed task/process/operation; or in other words, the machines that are capable of carrying out the task, and thus exactly equivalent to Oetsch’s cap(J) data structure. Examiner notes Oetsch further recites “Every job j has a duration dj;k that depends on the machine k it is assigned to” (¶0027) (“processing time”), and “The relation --> determines the sequence in which the jobs j in the set of jobs J are processed on machine k.” (¶0031) (“processing order for the respective machines”).
Applicant’s remaining arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Interpretations
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims include one or more elements which are being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a data pre-processing module configured to receive scheduling target data…pre-process the scheduling target data to generate…, a scheduling module configured to generate a scheduling result…extract a previous scheduling result…modify preassigned data of the predetermined machine by overwriting…, a data post-processing module configured to store the scheduling result in a database recited in claims 1, 3 and 5-7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have the limitation(s) above interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8 as amended recite generate a multi-machine list comprising two or more single machine lists, each single machine list comprising a single machine that can perform the process which is not supported by the written description in AppSpec. The recited language does not appear therein and conflicts with the other description provided. AppSpec pg. 11-12 describes how “single machine lists” can be derived (‘classified’?) from a “multi-machine list”, but this is not equivalent to the multi-machine list “comprising” single machine lists in the same way that it is incorrect to say an alphabet “comprises” words. Examiner refers to the Response to Arguments above at pg. 8 for further discussion and the interpretation being applied.
The claim elements of a data pre-processing module, a scheduling module, and a data post-processing module recited in claims 1, 3 and 5-7 that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and have been rejected under 112(b) as described below due to the absence of sufficient description in AppSpec of corresponding structure; as such, limitations also fail to meet the written description requirement and are rejected under 112(a) as well. “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)” (MPEP 2181).
Any claim listed in the rejection heading not explicitly listed in the body is rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Rejections under 112(b) in relation to limitations invoking 112(f):
Claims 1, 3 and 5-7 recite elements of a data pre-processing module, a scheduling module, and a data post-processing module that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, Applicant’s as-filed Specification (AppSpec) fails to clearly link any structure disclosed therein to the recited function(s) of any of the claimed modules. AppSpec FIG. 1 illustrates each of the elements in respectively labelled, but otherwise identical, boxes, and the corresponding description for FIG. 1 (AppSpec ¶0051-0054) essentially repeats the claimed functionality, but no suggestion or indication as to the structure employed to implement their respective functions could be identified by Examiner, and the claims are accordingly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Furthermore, regarding the limitations as amended of the multi-machine list comprising two or more single machine lists, as described in the rejections under 112(a) above and the response to arguments the limitation of a multi-machine list “comprising” single machine lists lacks written description support. The amended language appears to be attributing functions described as performed by the “multi-machine processing module”/“machine division module” (AppSpec pg. 11, 19-20) to the pre-processing module.
Lastly there is no clear correspondence between the function of overwriting the respective processing time for performing the process with the predetermined machine with the extracted previous scheduling result and the function(s) found in the written description. AppSpec does describe an “overwriting module” (AppSpec pg. 15, li. 21- pg. 16, li. 6), but its function is described as occurring prior to “processing time setting module may retrieve previous scheduling data” as part of the “data post-processing module” (in an alternative embodiment where the “data post-processing module” comprises the “scheduling module”?).
Examiner additionally refers to the Response to Arguments above at pg. 3-4 regarding why the structure identified by Applicant does not constitute corresponding structure clearly linked the recited functions and/or does not constitute adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure and clearly links the structure to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize it as such, applicant should clarify the record by stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Ambiguous claim language (not related to 112(f)):
As noted above, the amended limitation of claims 1 and 8 reciting "a multi-machine list comprising two or more single machine lists” is rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) for lacking written description support. The limitation reciting the relationship (“comprising”) between the is also indefinite due to its inconsistency with the description provided; see MPEP 2173.03: “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain”. Furthermore, the multi-machine list and single machine list elements are indefinite as each is recited as being a “list” with no suggestion or indication as to what they are lists of (i.e. processes/tasks, see AppSpec FIG. 6). Examiner is maintaining the interpretation, derived from AppSpec FIG. 6 and pg. 11, li. 20-25 and pg. 24, li. 23-25, described in the Response to Arguments above at pg. 8 and in the 03/27/2025 Non-Final Office Action at pg. 6, that a “multi-machine list” is a list of to-be scheduled processes/tasks each in association with one or more machines which are capable of/candidates for performing it and a “single machine list” (one of the columns of the right matrix FIG. 6) as an assignment of each process/task to one of the machines associated with the process in the multi-machine list.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 13 recite limitations with ambiguous and/or conflicting antecedent reference to the claim element “processing time of the predetermined machine”. Particularly, claims 1 and 8 recite setting a processing time for a predetermined machine and overwriting the respective processing time for performing the process with the predetermined machine; claims 3 and 10 further recite resetting the processing time of the predetermined machine which comprises one of either removing preassigned data of the predetermined machine or setting the processing time to the reduced processing time; claims 6 and 13 recite resetting the processing time of the predetermined machine to a new value. Some of these processing time (re)setting steps are presumably intended as further refinements of prior recited steps and/or intended to be applied serially and/or intended to be applied to different processing time records, but since they all simply refer uniformly to “processing time of the predetermined machine” makes it impossible to establish a clear and consistent interpretation of the (re)setting steps and makes the metes and bounds of the limitations unclear.
Examiner refers to the rejections below regarding how the various recitations are interpreted at the various points.
Any claim listed in the rejection heading not explicitly listed in the body is rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more because the recited steps/operations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claims:
Step 1:
Regarding the independent claims, claims 1 and 8 fall respectively under the “machine” and “process” statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims 1 and 8 are each directed to a method for “multi-machine and performance-based continuous production planning global optimization scheduling” the recited operations/steps encompass processes practically performed mentally or with pen and paper. The USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance") explains that "mental processes" include acts that people can perform in their minds or using pen and paper, even if the claim recites that a generic computer component performs the acts. ("If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind.").
Here, claim 1 recites receive scheduling target data comprising at least one of a product, a process, a process order, a process time, a machine, a process start date, a process completion date, an indicator having a value that indicates whether the process time is fixed, and a scheduling history; pre-process the scheduling target data to generate a multi-machine list comprising two or more single machine lists, each single machine list comprising a single machine that can perform the process and a processing time for performing the process with the respective single machine, the multi-machine list further comprising a processing order for the respective single machines. Generically receiving information such as the recited scheduling target data can be reasonably characterized as reciting a mental process, i.e., a mental observation. Generically processing information to generate, or merely reorganize, other information, including the multi-machine list and single machine list(s) such as those illustrated in AppSpec FIG. 6, is a process that can be performed in the human mind by using a pen and paper. Similarly, setting a processing time for a predetermined machine selected from the two or more a single machine list is an act reasonably performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper, including where the setting entails adjusting/overwriting a prior/preassigned data comprising a prior processing time (estimate?) for a performing a task on a particular machine with information from a previous scheduling result (e.g. making a mental note and/or written record that a particular machine has recently been completing tasks more or less efficiently than average).
Claim 8 recites essentially identical limitations and is subject to the same analysis.
Thus, consistent with the Guidance and case law, Examiner concludes claims 1 and 8 are each directed to a mental process (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, such as, an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), which is an abstract idea. See e.g. Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. For Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (2014) (concluding claims reciting receiving two data sets, and combining those data sets into a single data set is "an ineligible abstract process of gathering and combining data"); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding claims directed to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis" were abstract); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding claims were directed to the abstract idea of "selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis").
Additional Elements Analysis (Step 2A, Prong Two and 2B):
The claims do not recite additional elements sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; nor do the additional elements inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the analysis below. Claim 1 additionally recites: A device…a data pre-processing module…a scheduling module…a data post-processing module; claims 1 and 8 additionally recite extracting a previous scheduling result prestored in a database…storing the scheduling result in the database and wherein modifying the preassigned data comprises a data modification.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The recited device, data pre-processing module, scheduling module, and data post-processing module, although ambiguous as described in the 112(b) rejections above, are presumably intended to describe computer/software functionality, and at most amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983” (MPEP § 2106.05(f); “The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…Merely reciting the words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” (MPEP § 2106.04(d). The recitation that modifying the preassigned data comprises a data modification similarly represents mere instruction to apply the mental process of substituting one processing time value with a different, modified value using generic computer instructions.
The recitation of extracting a previous scheduling result prestored in a database and storing the scheduling result in the database constitutes extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Step 2B:
The generic recitation of extracting a previous scheduling result prestored in a database and storing the scheduling result in a database is extra-solution activity to the judicial exception recognized by the courts as a as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function and accordingly does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity...iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363” (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent Claims:
None of the dependent claims resolve the eligibility issues described above. Each of dependent claims 3, 5-7, 10, and 12-14 recite limitations that constitute a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper and are ineligible for the same reasons as described above for claims 1 and 8; they each recite limitations of manipulating processing time information in relation to a schedule; all of which are directed to ineligible subject matter (mental process) that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper as described above.
Claim 15 additionally recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 8” which is a clear instance of mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the reasons described above for the “device” at 2A, Prong Two.
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, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oetsch et al. (US 2022/0358421 A1) in view of Chua et al. (US 2005/0154625 A1) in further view of Servranckx et al. (“Strategies for project scheduling with alternative subgraphs under uncertainty: similar and dissimilar sets of schedules”, 2019).
Claims 1, 8 and 15:
Oetsch discloses the limitations as shown in the following rejections:
A device (scheduler)/[claim 15]non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (scheduler memory) storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method…for multi-machine and performance-based continuous production planning global optimization scheduling (¶0021, 0051 FIG. 1).
receiving scheduling target data comprising at least one of a product (set of jobs J), a process (job j), a process order, a process time (duration), a machine, a process start date (release time);
pre-process the scheduling target data to generate a multi-machine list (defined by cap(J)) [from which] two or more single machine lists (schedules, particularly assignments α thereof) [can be derived], each single machine list comprising [a plurality of processes each associated with a respective] a single machine that can perform the process and a processing time (duration dj;k) for performing the process with the respective single machine, and associated information including a processing order (sequence) for the respective single machines (see at least ¶0024, 0029-0033, 0047, 0063-0064, 0052) disclosing the function cap(J) defines a list associating each job j with machines capable of processing it. Exemplary quotations:
“Given m machines k in the set of machines K and n jobs j in the set of jobs J…Some machines k can only handle certain jobs j; cap(j) is a set of machines that is capable of processing job j” (¶0023-0024)
“Every job j has a duration dj;k that depends on the machine k it is assigned to…an assignment α that maps each job j to a machine k ∈ cap(j) capable of processing it… for each machine k, a total order << on the set J of jobs j assigned to the machine k via the assignment α (¶0027-0030)…a processing sequence of the jobs j assigned to machine k in a given schedule. The processing time pji of a job ji is its duration plus the setup-up time” (¶0033).
“ASP is a compact relational, in essence propositional, formalism where variables in the input language are replaced by constant symbols in a preprocessing step called grounding (¶0052)... Line 1 expresses that each job is assigned to a machine capable of processing it. The notation asg(J,M): cap(M,J) means that in the grounding step for each value j of the global variable J as it occurs in the body. This means asg(J,M) is replaced by all atoms asg(j,m) for which cap(j,m) can be derived” (¶0064).
generating a scheduling result by setting a processing time for a predetermined (particular) machine selected (optimal schedule with minimal makespan) from the two or more single machine lists (potential assignment α) (¶0026-0030, 0033, 0047, 0097-0104)
Oetsch does not specifically disclose extracting a previous scheduling result prestored in a database or a data post-processing module configured to store the scheduling result in a database.
Chua, however, discloses an analogous job-shop scheduling system including a scheduling database and a data post-processing module configured to store the scheduling result in a database in at least 0067-0068, 0075, 0155, 0126, 0138, 0149; FIG. 2; “the finalized scheduling information is read from the 3D machine timeline data structure 300 and stored in the scheduling database 110. The stored information is used to generate output of the form requested by the user. Output may take the form of a production schedule” (¶0155). Chua further discloses extracting a previous scheduling result (previous scheduling run) prestored in the database, durations of which may be modified (discussed further below in relation to claims 3 and 10) (see at least ¶0126, 0138-0150, 0149).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine Oetsch’s scheduler with Chua’s scheduling database to ensure continuity and minimize interruptions between a previously established schedule and a current scheduling cycle (Chua ¶0148-0151).
Oetsch and Chua do not describe modifying the duration information to account for actual machine performance effectiveness when performing jobs/tasks (see Applicant’s preferred interpretation at pg. 13 of the Remarks), and the combination of Oetsch/Chua does not specifically disclose modify preassigned data of the predetermined machine by overwriting the respective processing time for performing the process with the predetermined machine with the extracted previous scheduling result.
Servranckx, however, discloses analogous methods for maintaining project/work schedules including methods to account for uncertain activity (process/job) duration (processing time) in an ongoing project schedule disclosing “we calculate the expected activity durations based on the observed uncertainty in the partial project schedule before the switch, and this information is used to update the remaining work in the new schedule” (pg. 45, § 4.4) including duration changes due to resource efficiency (machine performance) and teaches extract a previous scheduling result (result of partial schedule execution prior to Decision Moment (DM)) prestored in a database (schedule data in computer memory) modify preassigned data of the predetermined machine by overwriting the respective processing time (planned duration) for performing the process (activity) with the predetermined machine (resource/machine) with the extracted previous scheduling result (expected duration computed from observed resource efficiency), wherein modifying the preassigned data comprises a data modification (updated/new schedule) (see at least pg. 44, col. 1, para. 2; pg. 45-46, § 4.4, para. 1 and 4-5; pg. 46, § 5 and Fig. 6). Exemplary quotations (reproduced by image capture for variable notations and formulas):
PNG
media_image2.png
252
353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
139
343
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify Oetsc/Chua to update job durations to account for machine efficiency vs expectation as taught by Servranckx to ensure the schedule accurately reflects unexpected dynamics when carrying out the jobs (Servranckx pg. 38, Abstract; pg. § 6).
Claims 3 and 10:
The combination of Oetsch/Chua/Servranckx discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Chua further discloses identify a start date of a process from the single machine list after data modification, reset the processing time of the machine by calculating a reduced processing time (“RPT: Remaining processing time”) by subtracting a scheduling time point from the start date of the process, and when the reduced processing time is less than or equal to 0 (“RPT=max(0,TPT-APT)”; “RPT: Remaining processing time”, “APT: Actual processing time the running lot has gone through”) remove preassigned data of the machine, and when the reduced processing time is greater than or equal to 1, set the processing time (add a “frozen work order” to the schedule with the “ET: End time of the running lot” accounting for the updated (reduced) RPT) in at least Chua ¶0126, 0138-0150, 0088-0091 disclosing at the beginning of a scheduling run “the previous scheduling run is checked to locate any work orders which were running at the end of the previous scheduling time period. Running work orders which were not finished during the previous scheduling time period will be scheduled first during the current scheduling time period”; orders with RPT are added to schedule “to maintain continuity and minimize interruptions between the preceding schedule and the current schedule (i.e. the schedule resulting from the current scheduling run)” (¶0150). See also Oetsch ¶0040-0044 disclosing accounting for schedule dynamics with respect to a time point t.
Claims 5 and 12:
The combination of Oetsch/Chua/Servranckx discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Servranckx further discloses updating a processing time for performing an additional process using the predetermined machine (different activity using the same resource), wherein an original processing time estimate did not consider the previous scheduling result of the predetermined machine (see at least pg. 44, col. 1, para. 2; pg. 45-46, § 4.4, para. 1 and 4-5).
Claims 6 and 13:
The combination of Oetsch/Chua/Servranckx discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Servranckx further discloses [wherein overwriting the respective processing time for performing the process with the predetermined machine comprises] resetting the processing time of the predetermined machine to a new value based on a numerical evaluation (e.g. % resource efficiency, weighted average) of a prior performance (observed efficiency) of the machine.
Claims 7 and 14:
The combination of Oetsch/Chua/Servranckx discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Oetsch further discloses receive the multi-machine list (cap(M,J)) from the data pre-processing module and classify a plurality of single machine lists (asg(J,M)) based on the number of cases (all atoms asg(j,m)) for the task, wherein each case comprises a unique assignment of machines in the multi-machine list; and a machine selection module configured to select a predetermined single machine list from the plurality of single machine lists and return the predetermined single machine list to the scheduling module in at least ¶0063-0068 and 0081-0085 disclosing the optimization algorithm models the “feasible sequences of jobs on machines” wherein: “each job is assigned to a machine capable of processing it. The notation asg(J,M): cap(M,J) means that in the grounding step for each value j of the global variable J as it occurs in the body. This means asg(J,M) is replaced by all atoms asg(j,m) for which cap(j,m) can be derived” (¶0064). The feasible sequences are iteratively searched (selected in a predetermined order) until the optimal solution is found.
Regarding the recitation of determining a number of cases for a task comprising the process, wherein, when a number of single machines that may perform a task k among N tasks is fk, the number of cases is
∏
k
=
1
N
f
k
; the limitation describes the inherent number of combinations of task/job-to-machine assignments, which is equal to the number of unique candidate assignments α or “atoms” produced for evaluation by Oetsch after the grounding step described above. For example, given a set of jobs J = j1, j2 where cap(j1) = m1, m2 and cap(j2) = m3, m4, m5; the number of candidate assignments α = 2 * 3 = 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
US 20190049938 A1 and US 20030022404 A1 disclose methods to estimate processing times based on recent history and/or observed results of scheduling operations to machines.
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Paul Mills whose telephone number is 571-270-5482. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 11:00am-8:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, April Blair can be reached at 571-270-1014.
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.
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.
/P. M./
Paul Mills
10/03/2025
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196