DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The amendment filed on 03/30/2026 has been received and fully considered.
3. Claims 1-6, and 9-12 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The art rejection had been withdrawn and the rejection under 35 USC 103 has been modified in light of the amendment. Regarding Applicant’s assertions that: “Amended claim 1 is not directed to as a mental process or otherwise mathematical concepts as the Examiner discussed in conjunction with previous claim 1. Instead, claim 1 is directed to a method including elements in which a processor of a control system performs actions for at least one of planning or controlling a production by a production system. The Applicant respectfully submits that this is not an abstract concept of a mental process or mathematical concepts.” and
“Moreover, in addition to the recited simulation, the processor, based on the simulation, provides on at least a display at least one of open-loop or closed-loop control-related outputs that comprise production sequences, worker assignments, and supplier orders, as well as provides on at least the display, based on the simulation, information outputs that comprise material requirements coverage, completion dates, capacity utilization, bottlenecks, critical paths, and temporal progression of the production system.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims, as currently constructed, are clearly directed to an abstract idea and do not recite anything that goes beyond the judicial exception. While the preamble of the claim recites systems for performing action of planning or control, there absolutely no controlling of anything recited by the claims; and the displaying steps could clearly amount extra-solution activities and do not add anything more significant than the abstract idea. Furthermore, regarding applicant’s assertions that “Further, the processor generates a data structure as a result of the prioritization of the material requirements, wherein the data structure comprises at least material type, requirement quantity and requirement deadline for each production section, and wherein the data structure also comprises an index structure wherein entries in the data structure are referenced among one another, wherein the second sub-method is executed to process the data structure and the production lines are assigned, workers are distributed, and/or supplier orders generated based on the data structure.” and “The information provided on the display and the type of data structure generated/utilized during at least one of planning or controlling a production by a production system provide additional evidence that amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract concept of a mental processor or mathematical concepts. The Applicant requests reconsideration.”, the Examiner respectfully notes that said generating step is clearly abstract “a mental process” and that the additional step of display, similarly, clearly amount to well-known post-solution activities and do not add anything more significant to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are clearly abstract, as currently constructed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
5.1 Claims 1-6, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A- Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) a computer-implemented method for at least one of planning or controlling a production by a production system comprising a plurality of production sections and production lines, comprising: The step of: ““simulating,…, the production system, the production planning or the control of the production, where the simulating comprises carrying out a first sub-method and a second sub-method”, wherein the first sub-method comprises: prioritizing material requirements in the production sections depending on their impact on the optimization of a cost function of the production system; selecting one of the material requirements in order of prioritization”, “selecting another of the material requirements, repeating the previous step until the materials and at least one of the adjusted requirement quantities or requirement deadlines for all of the prioritized material requirements are reserved”; and “the second sub-method comprises: fixing a first production period in the production sequence”; “wherein the production system is at least one of open-loop or closed-loop controlled according to the optimized production sequence obtained in the second sub-method”, “generating a data structure as a result of the prioritization of the material requirements, wherein the data structure comprises at least material type, requirement quantity and requirement deadline for each production section, and wherein the data structure also comprises an index structure wherein entries in the data structure are referenced among one another, wherein the second sub-method is executed to process the data structure and at least one of the production lines are assigned, workers are distributed, or supplier orders generated based on the data structure”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, by use of generic computer components and thus are clearly directed to an abstract idea, as constructed.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation such as: “a processor”, “a processing unit” (claim 10), “at least one interface”, via which communication between “the system and a controller”, via which communication between the system and “a controller”, “a cloud infrastructure”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities and can be of any type, including general-purpose computer previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “obtaining a production sequence” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering and processing activities that are pre-solution activities; and the further steps of: “adjusting at least one requirement quantity and/or one requirement deadline of materials in preceding production sections to implement the material requirements” and “reserving the materials and the adjusted requirement quantity and/or the requirement deadline”; and “optimizing the production sequence outside the first production period to further optimize the cost function”, “providing on at least a display, with the processor, based on the simulation, at least one of open-loop or closed-loop control-related outputs that comprise production sequences, worker assignments, and supplier orders”; “providing on at least the display, with the processor, based on the simulation, information outputs that comprise material requirements coverage, completion dates, capacity utilization, bottlenecks, critical paths, and temporal progression of the production system”; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under post-solution activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously discussed above with reference to the integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: “a processor”, “a processing unit”, “at least one interface”, via which communication between “the system and a controller”, “a cloud infrastructure”, the cloud infrastructure comprising “a cloud-based storage”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities and can be of any type, including general-purpose computer previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “obtaining a production sequence” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering and processing activities that are pre-solution activities; and the further steps of: “adjusting at least one requirement quantity and/or one requirement deadline of materials in preceding production sections to implement the material requirements” and “reserving the materials and the adjusted requirement quantity and/or the requirement deadline”; and “optimizing the production sequence outside the first production period to further optimize the cost function”, “providing on at least a display, with the processor, based on the simulation, at least one of open-loop or closed-loop control-related outputs that comprise production sequences, worker assignments, and supplier orders”; “providing on at least the display, with the processor, based on the simulation, information outputs that comprise material requirements coverage, completion dates, capacity utilization, bottlenecks, critical paths, and temporal progression of the production system”; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under post-solution activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Therefore, using computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract, as constructed.
5.2 Dependent claims 2-6, 9-12 merely include limitations pertaining to: (claim 2), “wherein an iteration of the second sub-method is terminated in response to no significant optimization of the production sequence being obtained” (mathematical concept or otherwise a mental process), and “a further iteration of the second sub-method is started “ (WURC post-solution activities); (claim 3) “executing an evolutionary algorithm for carrying out the second sub-method, which evolutionary algorithm is initialized with the production sequence obtained in the first sub-method or a mutation of the first sub-method” (data gathering and processing or otherwise a mathematical concept); (claim 4); “simulating at least one of production parameters, optimality criteria or constraints, wherein the production parameters comprise at least one of worker situation, machine capabilities, material availabilities, at least one of material buffers or supplier capacities, the optimality criteria comprise at least one of maximum utilization of the machines or workers, minimization of delays, at least one of lowest stock levels or minimization of material flows and the constraints comprise priorities of material requirements, at least one of maximum warehouse or material buffer sizes, transport conditions, planning horizon, and/or supplier capacities” (mental process); (claim 5); “simulating a shift operation of workers and assigning workers to the production lines in the simulation, wherein any change in the assignment of workers to the production lines is carried out at least depending on the at least one of material requirements or material stocks” (mental process); (claim 6); “checking whether materials lacking for the material requirements can be delivered in compliance with the requirement deadline in response to insufficient materials being available to implement the material requirements, wherein in the event of a positive check a delivery is ordered and the delivered materials are reserved and in the event of a negative check, a further materials requirement that is compliant is reserved” (mental process); (claim 9) “: generating a digital twin of a real factory in the simulation; determining a planning horizon for the digital twin; and controlling the real factory using the planning horizon” (mental process); (claim 12) “wherein at least one of a simulation of the production system, the production planning or control takes place in the cloud” (mental process), all of which further amount to further mathematical concept and/or mental process similar to that already recited by the independent claims and already addressed above and thus are further not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Interpretation
6. 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
6.1 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 (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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” (or “step”) 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6.2 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 limitation(s) is/are: “a processing unit configured to…” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7.1 Claims 1-6, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims provide for a computer-implemented method for planning or controlling production of system; however, it is unclear how the steps set forth in the claims manages to perform said planning or controlling nor the manner by which the claimed planning or controlling could accomplished, as intended in the claims, and leave doubt as to what applicant regards as his invention. Further clarification is respectfully requested in response to this office action.
Specification
8. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the first page of the specification contains attorney information, including address, phone number, and registration number. The Examiner respectfully requests that amendment be made to correct the above informalities, accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
9.1 Nagahara et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2015/0081263) teaches a production simulation apparatus and production simulation method.
10. Claims 1-6, and 9-12 are rejected and THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights