DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on September 5, 2025. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended, claims 4, 7-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-19 and 22-25 have been canceled, and claim 26 has been added.
Currently claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 13, 17, 20-21 and 26 are pending. Claim 1 is independent.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on September 5, 2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2025 appears to be in compliance with the previsions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in the interview on August 6, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 2 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection to claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 13, 17, 20-21 and 26 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 5, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 12, Applicant's argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that claim 1 recites "the plant equipment operates based on the work assignment that has been presented" is analogous to the U.S. Supreme Court case Diamond v. Diehr, U.S. 175 (1981).
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the previous Interview Summary, the claims in Diehr involve the transformation of an article, from raw, uncured synthetic rubber, into a different state or thing based on the combination of specific level of activation energy, pressure, temperatures, and timing. The Court evaluated the additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450, U.S. at 184, 187. In contrast, Applicant's "plant equipment" such as a motor, a pump, a valve, or the like (see (see ¶ 29). The Specification fails to provide any technical implementation details on how the plant equipment (e.g., a motor, a pump, a valve) is automatically operated based on the work assignment that has been presented. But instead of, the Specification discloses that "an operator in charge who can perform the "procedure 1-2" having a name of "control operation of equipment A is a human having the performance qualification of the system, and the human who is handling the operation of the plant or can handle the operation of the plant has the performance qualification", (see ¶ 70). Thus, [automating] manual and mental processes on generic computers does not make an abstract idea patent eligible. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A]utomation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”)
In the Remarks on page 14, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection under Step 2A, Prong Two even if the claims were considered to recite an abstract idea, the additional elements transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application by improving the functioning of an existing technology and overcoming a specific technical problem.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “plant equipment”, “a processor”, “memory”, “electronic device”, “work assignment device”, “electronic sensor”, and the terms of “electronically” and “dynamically”. The Specification describes that “the processor 11 is a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), or the like. The memory 12 is a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), or the like. The input device is a keyboard, a pointing device, a microphone, a scanner, a camera, a communication interface, a sensor, or the like.” (see ¶ 41); “The plant equipment is an equipment in accordance with the kind of plant, such as a motor, a pump, a valve, or the like.” (see ¶ 46), and “The work assignment device…for outputting a result of the assignment of the operator to the work, to an external output device such as a display, a speaker, or the like.” (see ¶ 70). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not reflect any improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology.
In the Remarks on page 17, Applicant argues that Lee does not disclose or suggest diagnosing a plant condition as a preceding step to estimation. However, Applicant’s argument is directed to the newly amended claim, and therefore, the newly amended claim will be fully addressed in this Office Action.
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, 5-9, 13, 17, 20-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 13, 17, 20-21 and 26 are directed to a system comprising a processor and a memory, which falls within the statutory category of a machine.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking claim 1 as representative, the claim recites the limitations of “deriving a work procedure on the basis of plant information on a plant, selecting a plurality of work assignment candidates each indicating an assignment of an operator to a procedure, performing evaluation on each of the plurality of work assignment candidates, determining a work assignment from the plurality of work assignment candidates, determining a presentation method for presenting the work assignment to the operator, and presenting the work assignment”, and dependent claims 2-3, 5-9, 13, 17 and 20-21 are further narrowing the limitations similar to claim 1. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor” and “a memory” for executing a program stored in the memory, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person can manually selecting a plurality of work assignment candidates, performing evaluation on each of the plurality of work assignment candidates, estimating an occurring event which is occurring in the plant on the basis of the plant information, determining the work assignment…, and presenting the work assignment to the operator”, which fall within the “mental processes” grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “a processor”, “a memory” and “plant equipment” do not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “plant equipment”, “a processor”, “memory”, “electronic device”, “work assignment device”, “electronic sensor”, and the terms of “electronically” and “dynamically”.
The term “electronically” is not supported by the Specification and, therefore, fails to meet the written-description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The Specification does not describe “an electronic device” is used for monitoring the plant facility, but instead, “a minimum number of operators monitors a plurality of plants at the same time” (see ¶ 5); and even if an electronic device, such as a sensor, for monitoring the plant facility, it is nothing more than data gathering using generic computer components.
With respect to the term “dynamically/automatically”, the courts has held that “automating manual and mental processes on generic computers does not make the abstract idea patent eligible.” See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A]utomation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”).
For the additional elements of “plant equipment”, “a processor”, “memory”, “electronic device”, “work assignment device” and “electronic sensor”. The Specification describes that “the processor 11 is a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), or the like. The memory 12 is a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), or the like. The input device is a keyboard, a pointing device, a microphone, a scanner, a camera, a communication interface, a sensor, or the like.” (see ¶ 41); “The plant equipment is an equipment in accordance with the kind of plant, such as a motor, a pump, a valve, or the like.” (see ¶ 46), and “The work assignment device…for outputting a result of the assignment of the operator to the work, to an external output device such as a display, a speaker, or the like.” (see ¶ 70). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “plant equipment”, “a processor”, “memory”, “electronic device”, “work assignment device”, “electronic sensor”, and the terms of “electronically” and “dynamically”.
The term “electronically” is not supported by the Specification and, therefore, fails to meet the written-description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The Specification does not describe “an electronic device” is used for monitoring the plant facility, but instead, “a minimum number of operators monitors a plurality of plants at the same time” (see ¶ 5); and even if an electronic device, such as a sensor, for monitoring the plant facility, it is nothing more than data gathering using generic computer components.
With respect to the term “dynamically/automatically”, the courts has held that “automating manual and mental processes on generic computers does not make the abstract idea patent eligible.” See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A]utomation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”).
For the additional elements of “plant equipment”, “a processor”, “memory”, “electronic device”, “work assignment device” and “electronic sensor”. The Specification describes that “the processor 11 is a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), or the like. The memory 12 is a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), or the like. The input device is a keyboard, a pointing device, a microphone, a scanner, a camera, a communication interface, a sensor, or the like.” (see ¶ 41); “The plant equipment is an equipment in accordance with the kind of plant, such as a motor, a pump, a valve, or the like.” (see ¶ 46), and “The work assignment device…for outputting a result of the assignment of the operator to the work, to an external output device such as a display, a speaker, or the like.” (see ¶ 70). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network, at best, the processor and memory, may performing the steps of storing the program and presenting (displaying) the work assignment to the [monitor] of the operator. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (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, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93); and Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 13, 17, 20-21 and 26 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The 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 of this title, 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, 5-6, 9, 13, 17, 20-21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomiyama et al., (JP 2009238033, hereinafter: Tomiyama), and in view of Lee et al., (KR 20110011386, hereinafter: Lee), and further in view of Strohmenger et al., (US 2016/0274558, hereinafter: Strohmenger), and Sakagami et al., (JP 2004077526, hereinafter: Sakagami), and Uchida et al., (US 5817958, hereinafter: Uchida).
Regarding claim 1, Tomiyama discloses a work assignment device to electronically monitor and control a plant facility by dynamically performing work assignment, comprising:
a processor to execute a program (see pg. 4, ¶ 5, ¶ 8; pg. 6, ¶ 6), and
a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor (see pg. 4, ¶ 4; pg. 6, ¶ 6), performs processes of,
selecting a plurality of feasible work assignment candidates from among a plurality of work assignment candidates based on the derived work procedure and operator condition, each of the feasible work assignment candidates indicating a feasible assignment of an operator to a procedure which is a constituent of the derived work procedure to be performed in response to the event at the plant facility (see pg. 3, ¶ 3; pg. 4, ¶ 4; pg. 5, ¶ 2; pg. 6, ¶ 8; pg.13, ¶ 9-11; pg. 14, ¶ 3-4; pg. 19, ¶ 10-12; pg. 20, ¶ 11; pg. 28, ¶ 1);
performing evaluation on each of the selected plurality of feasible work assignment candidates based on the derived work procedure and the operator condition (see pg. 3, ¶ 6; pg. 6, ¶ 3; pg. 7, ¶ 11; pg. 8, ¶ 2, ¶ 9; pg. 28, ¶ 1);
determining the work assignment from the selected plurality of feasible work assignment candidates on the basis of a result said evaluating (see pg. 5, ¶ 2-3; pg. 7, ¶ 12 to pg. 8, ¶ 9);
dynamically determining the work presentation methodology to present the determined work assignment to the operator to which the determined work assignment has been assigned, the dynamically determining the presentation methodology including (see pg. 2, ¶ 2-3; pg. 3, ¶ 3, ¶ 6; pg. 4, ¶ 2-4; pg. 6, ¶ 8 to pg. 7, ¶ 1; pg. 7, 11 to pg. 8, ¶ 2; pg. 11, 4);
determination of a presentation timing to present the work assignment to the electronic device of the operator (see pg. 21, ¶ 3-4, ¶ 11; ); and
presenting the work assignment to an electronic device of the operator via the determined presentation methodology at the determined presentation timing, the electronic device of the operator being external to the work assignment device (see pg. 4, ¶ 2-3; pg. 8, ¶ 1; pg. 19, ¶ 11; pg. 15, ¶ 2; pg. 21, ¶ 11),
the selected plurality of feasible work assignment candidates are selected on the basis of work procedure information on each procedure and operator information on each operator (see Abstract; pg. 11, ¶ 4; pg. 13, ¶ 9-10; pg. 19, ¶ 11-12; pg. 28, ¶ 1; pg. 31, ¶ 1),
the work procedure information indicates whether or not each of a human and a system can perform each procedure (see pg. 9, ¶ 5-6, ¶ 15; pg. 15, ¶ 4; pg. 20, ¶ 4),
the human or the system is assigned to the procedure when the work procedure information indicates that the human and the system can perform the procedure (see pg. 6, ¶ 8 to pg. 7, ¶ 2; pg. 30, ¶ 4-5),
the human is assigned to the procedure when the work procedure information indicates that the human can perform the procedure but the system cannot perform the procedure (see pg. 9, ¶ 4-5, pg. 11, ¶ 1; pg. 12, ¶ 7; pg. 13, ¶ 9-10; pg. 15, ¶ 3-4; pg. 18, ¶ 4-9), and
the system is assigned to the procedure when the work procedure information indicates that the system can perform the procedure but the human cannot perform the procedure (see pg. 9, ¶ 15; pg. 10, ¶ 8; pg. 11, ¶ 2-4; pg. 13, ¶ 1; pg. 19, ¶ 4-5; pg. 24, ¶ 1-2; pg. 27, ¶ 3-5).
Tomiyama does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lee in an analogous art for task scheduling discloses
deriving a work procedure, to be performed in response to an event at the plant facility, on the basis of time-series plant information electronically acquired from plant equipment of or at the plant facility and associated with occurrence of the event at the plant facility (see pg. 4, ¶ 6-7, pg. 11, ¶ 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tomiyama to include teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Tomiyama and Lee do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Strohmenger in an analogous art for enhancing industrial operation discloses
electronically monitor and control a plant facility by dynamically performing work assignment (see ¶ 108, ¶ 131, ¶ 144);
real-time acquisition of data corresponding to the operator condition (see ¶ 111, ¶ 154), and
wherein:
the operator condition includes at least one kind of information selected from a group consisting of a load status, a condition recognition power, a degree of fatigue, a degree of arousal, and/or a concentration power of the operator (see ¶ 63-64, ¶ 79),
the data acquired in the real time corresponding to the operator condition is electronically acquired by the work assignment device from a contract-type electronic sensor and/or a non-contact-type electronic sensor (see ¶ 107, ¶ 119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tomiyama and in view of Lee to include teaching of Strohmenger in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of additional viewpoint for the user, and facilitating knowledge of detail characteristics. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Tomiyama discloses a resource allocation support apparatus allocating resources (e.g., vehicles) between work and workers (see pg. 2, ¶ 4; pg. 3, ¶ 3); Strohmenger discloses the industrial automation system can comprise a number of assets that can represent the machines and equipment that make up the industrial automation system (see ¶ 134).
Tomiyama , Lee and Strohmenger do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Sakagami in an analogous art for human and machine evaluation discloses
plant equipment (see ¶ 7-8);
the plant equipment operates based on the work assignment that has been presented (see ¶ 3, ¶ 8, ¶ 21, ¶ 133),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tomiyama and in view of Lee and Strohmenger to include teaching of Sakagami in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit enhancing computational efficiency, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Tomiyama, Lee, Strohmenger and Sakagami do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Uchida in an analogous art for plant monitoring and diagnosing discloses
the processes further comprise:
diagnosing a plant condition of the plant (see col. 1, lines 12-15; col. 3, line 50 to col. 4, line 7; ; and
estimating an occurring event which is occurring in the plant on the basis of the diagnosed plant condition (see col. 3, lines 3-13; col. 3, line 53 to col. 4, line 2), and
the work procedure is derived on the basis of the estimated occurring event (see col. 4, lines 3-16; col. 11, lines 27-55; col. 14, line 63 to col. 15, line 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tomiyama and in view of Lee, Strohmenger and Sakagami to include teaching of Uchida in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of granularity in the analysis, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, the phrases “the operator condition includes at least one kind of information selected from a group consisting of a load status, a condition recognition power, a degree of fatigue, a degree of arousal, and/or a concentration power of the operator, the data acquired in the real time corresponding to the operator condition is electronically acquired by the work assignment device from a contract-type electronic sensor and/or a non-contact-type electronic sensor” merely describing the attributes of the operator conditions, which is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 2, Tomiyama does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lee discloses the work assignment device according to claim 1, wherein: the estimating of the occurring event is performed on the basis of the time-series plant information (see pg. 2, ¶ 5; pg. 3, ¶ 3-4; pg. 8, ¶ 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tomiyama to include teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3, Tomiyama does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lee discloses the work assignment device according to claim 2, wherein the occurring event is estimated by using a knowledge base which stores therein data necessary to estimate the event (see pg. 2, ¶ 5; pg. 3, ¶ 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tomiyama to include teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Tomiyama discloses the work assignment device according to claim 2, wherein a work procedure which is indicated by event information indicating a work procedure to be performed when each event occurs, and which is to be performed when the event occurs is determined as the work procedure to be determined (see pg. 1, ¶ 3 to pg. 2, ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 6, Tomiyama discloses the work assignment device according to claim1, wherein the time-series plant information includes at least one kind of information selected from a group consisting of alarm information on an alarm to be set off by the plant equipment which is a constituent of the plant and a plant value outputted from the plant equipment (see pg. 2, ¶ 4; pg. 7, ¶ 2; pg. 14, ¶ 1; pg. 29, 8).
Regarding claim 9, Tomiyama discloses the work assignment device according to claim 1, wherein the work procedure information indicates whether or not each procedure needs a performance qualification, the operator information indicates whether or not each operator has the performance qualification, and when the work procedure information indicates that the procedure needs the performance qualification, an operator having the performance qualification, who is indicated by the operator information, is assigned to the procedure and another operator not having the performance qualification, who is indicated by the operator information, is not assigned to the procedure (see pg. 8, ¶ 8 to pg. 9, ¶ 2; pg. 17, ¶ 6-7; pg. 29, ¶ 4-7).
Regarding claim 13, Tomiyama does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lee discloses the work assignment device according to claim 1 the operator condition is judged on the basis of at least one of operation information indicating information regarding an operation of the plant and biometric information of the operator (see pg. 4, ¶ 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tomiyama to include teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 17, Tomiyama discloses the work assignment device according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation is performed on the basis of a standard error rate of an error occurring when the procedure is performed, which is indicated by the work procedure information indicating a standard error rate of an error occurring when each procedure is performed (see pg. 3, ¶ 7, pg. 10, ¶ 9-10; pg. 20, ¶ 9; pg. 32, ¶ 11).
Regarding claim 20, Tomiyama does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lee discloses the work assignment device according to claim1, wherein
performing the evaluation includes calculating an evaluation value for each of the selected plurality of feasible work assignment candidates (see pg. 2, ¶ 2-3, ¶ 8; pg. 9, ¶ 5-6; pg. 19, ¶ 11-12) , and
determining the work assignment on the basis of the result of the evaluation includes determining the work assignment on the basis of a highest the evaluation value of the evaluation values for the selected plurality of work assignment candidates (see pg. 3, ¶ 1-5; pg. 4, ¶ 6-7; pg. 6, ¶ 4-5; pg. 8, ¶ 1-4; pg. 12, ¶ 6, ¶ 9-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tomiyama to include teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 21, Tomiyama discloses the work assignment device according to claim 1, wherein
performing the evaluation includes calculating an evaluation value for each of the selected plurality of feasible work assignment candidates, the evaluation value each of the selected plurality of feasible work assignment candidates indicates a magnitude of risk for the feasible work assignment candidate (see pg. 2, ¶ 2-3; pg. 3, ¶ 6-7; pg. 6, ¶ 3; pg. 7, ¶ 2; pg. 8, ¶ 2-3; pg. 19, ¶ 8-12), and
determining the work assignment includes determining one of the work assignment candidates of the plurality of work assignment candidates having an evaluation value indicating the magnitude of the corresponding to lowest risk, as the work assignment (see pg. 3, ¶ 6; pg. 4, ¶ 8, pg. 5, ¶ 2; pg. 8, ¶ 2-3, ¶ 7-9).
Regarding claim 26, Tomiyama, Lee, Strohmenger and Sakagami do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Uchida in an analogous art for plant monitoring and diagnosing discloses the work assignment device according to claim 1, wherein:
the plant equipment operates to at least one of start or stop a motor, start or stop a pump, or open or close a valve, based on the work assignment that has been presented (see col. 1, lines 41-67; col. 8, line 62 to col. 9, line 32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tomiyama and in view of Lee, Strohmenger and Sakagami to include teaching of Uchida in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of granularity in the analysis, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Al-Hamrani (US 2004/0260488) discloses a method for dynamically monitoring electrical parameters of the plant during plant operation.
Fukami et al., (WO 2020183690) discloses a monitoring control method for identifying information related to members respectively having operating authority of work task pertaining to a procedure in plant monitoring control.
Kashani (WO 0210904 A2) discloses an information processing apparatus that facilitates the completion of work through the creation of an evolving set of frequently used tasks to shar and present with a plurality of other users.
Iwasaki et al., (US 2005/0209902) discloses a worker management system includes a plant divided into a plurality of work areas each in correspondence to specific task contents to be performed by the worker based on the task identification information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624