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 .
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 03/30/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are primarily focused on that the applied prior art does not teach "routing an amount of said first raw material to said first plant from one or more other plants based on minimizing system inventory carrying cost and minimizing system transportation cost in response to said first plant needing an additional amount of said first raw material to realize said first predicted production rate for said product" (see Pg. 2, Args.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In pg. 6 of the arguments, Applicant states:
PNG
media_image1.png
288
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Cuttica does not “simply” teach “generating a production order execution plan based on the availability of raw materials and/or construction parts.” A reference must be considered for all that it may teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In at least pg. 4, Cuttica teaches considers the transport (i.e. routing) of raw materials from suppliers to production plants at least by the implication of their costs. Furthermore, Saito does not “simply” teach “a physical distribution route selection means for selecting a physical distribution route (a shipping route) for the additional stock of products from the production division.” In paragraph 4, Saito teaches tat materials for production (i.e. raw material for producing a product) can be procured (i.e. routed) from another factory (i.e., plant). Thus the combination does teach the limitation. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In pgs. 6-7 of the arguments, Applicant states:
PNG
media_image2.png
709
571
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the bottom two paragraphs of page 2, Cuttica teaches that prior art systems need to maintain a reserve quantity of materials that goes beyond needs (i.e. an excess inventory/”carrying”) in relation to procurement of materials for production, while in pg. 4 fourth paragraph the procurement costs are considered within the minimization of cost. Therefore, the implication of these paragraphs of Cuttica is that the excess reserve inventory a problem cost of the procurement of needed inventory, which is eliminated or minimized with procurement cost minimization for obtaining an inventory of needed material.
With regards to Saito, said reference also considers inventory stock costs in the system, as Applicant has pointed out in the arguments. Although, Applicant argues that this cost is the calculated monetary worth of all inventory, Saito ius still minimizing this value cost (para 33), and since it is inventory and stock, it means it is also in relation to material carried at a plant, since a stock is the amount of a material carried, which satisfies the instant specification. Especially, since “a shelving expense” is qualified as exemplary, as noted by the “such as.”
In pgs. 7-8 of the arguments, Applicant states:
PNG
media_image3.png
450
565
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In page Pg. 4 paras. 4 to 7, Cuttica makes clear that the minimization covers not only the capacity production rate of according to current determined availability, but also to replenishment (i.e. additional amount of raw material needed for continued capacity production.
With regards to Saito, Applicant argues that a material shortage is with respect to product inventory, however, as noted in paragraph 2, material is in reference to arts for production of a product, thus a form of raw material.
In pg. 8 of the arguments, Applicant states:
PNG
media_image4.png
213
559
media_image4.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image5.png
595
566
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In page 2 paragraph 4, Cuttica states that a production capacity in plants, which is a quantity of parts produced (i.e. volume) per unit time, is defined by a workflow of the production process. Furthermore, as seen from figure 2, and page 2 paragraph 11, and page 3, the forecasted predicted capacity production of plants is a feedback process that takes into account current workflow for a certain future time period (i.e., during a time frame).
For these reasons the rejection is maintained.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Italian Patent Publication No. IT202100001136A1 to Cuttica (hereinafter Cuttica. Note: English machine translation of IT202100001136A1 is included and cited in this office action. For ease of citation, the Examiner will cite “paragraphs” in Cuttica, where each page will begin from “paragraph” 1 at the top of each respective page and continue in sequential order until the end of each page. “Paragraphs” are being determined as any self-contained grouping of one or more sentences. Meaning a single heading or sentence is taken as a “paragraph.” The publication information box on the first page is being ignored for the purpose of paragraph numbering), in view of US Patent Publication No. 2011/0125543 to Saito et al., (hereinafter Saito).
Regarding claim 1, Cuttica teaches a system, comprising:
a memory for storing a computer program for efficient resource utilization using capacity planning (Memory storing program for production planning, see pg. 9 Para 5; Pg. 2 para 4, Cuttica);
and a processor connected to said memory, wherein said processor is configured to execute program instructions of the computer program (Processor, see pg. 9 Paras 5-7; Pg. 2 para 4, Cuttica) comprising:
creating a workflow of manufacturing a product using various machines at each plant of an organization (Workflow processes defined for production plants with machines, see Pg. 2 paras 4-5; Pg. 3 para 3, Pg. 6 Para 16;, Pg. 6 Para 20 to Pg. 7 Para 1; Pg. 8 P5, Cuttica,), wherein said workflow illustrates which machines are utilized to produce said product using one or more raw materials (Production processes activity workflow with established machining steps with operating units in production line, where production processes raw materials, see Pg. 6 Para 20 to Pg. 7 Para 1; Pg. 6 Para 16; Pg. 11 paras 4-6; Pg. 3 Paras 8-9, Pg. 2 para 11; Pg. 2 para 4; Pg. 3 para 3; , Pg. 8 P5, Cuttica);
predicting a production rate for said product at each plant of said organization manufacturing said product based on said workflow, wherein said production rate corresponds to a volume of units of said product to be manufactured during a time frame (Forecast (prediction) of production capacity is determined based on workflows, where production capacity is in the form of quantity of parts produced (i.e. volume) per unit time, thus a production rate, see Pg 3 Paras 8-12; Pg. 2 Para 4 to Pg. 3 Para5, Cuttica);
determining an amount of a first raw material required by a first plant to produce said product over said time frame based on a first predicted production rate for said product at said first plant (Raw material needed for production can be determined based on forecasted capacity, see Pg. 3 paras 15-16, Pg 3 Paras 8-16; Pg. 2 Para 4 to Pg. 3 Para5, Cuttica);
and routing an amount of said first raw material to said first plant from a supplier based on minimizing system inventory carrying cost and minimizing system transportation cost in response to said first plant needing an additional amount of said first raw material to realize said first predicted production rate for said product (Needed raw materials directed for procurement replenishment, with consideration of procurement and transportation costs and their minimization, see Pg. 4 Paras 3-8; Pg. 10 paras 12-17, Pg. 3 paras 7-16, Pg 3 Paras 8-16; Pg. 2 Para 4 to Pg. 3 Para5, Cuttica).
Cuttica does not explicitly teach routing an amount of material to first plant from one or more other plants.
However, Saito from the same or similar field of supply chain optimization, teaches routing an amount of material to first plant from one or more other plants (A needed material can be procured from another factory, and routed for distribution, and inventory costs and distribution costs considered for minimization, see P9-10, Abs., 21, p76-77, 79-80, 83, p27, P31, Fig. 2, 24, Saito).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production as described by Cuttica and incorporating supply from another plant, as taught by Saito.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to obtain needed material from a supplier with additional stock that can minimize lead time delays and costs (see p38, 24, pP9-10, Abs. p76-77, 79-80, 83, p27, P31, Fig. 2, Saito).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cuttica and Saito teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Saito further teaches wherein a program instructions of a computer program further comprise: computing an inventory carrying cost for a second plant in response to said second plant having an excess amount of said first raw material needed to realize a second predicted production rate for said product by said second plant (Additional product stock from another factory plant, with simulation prediction considering inventory value cost, see p31, p9-10, p76-77, 93, p40, Saito).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production as described by the combination that includes Cuttica and incorporating consideration of inventory, as taught by Saito.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better take into account values and costs in determining to distribute needed material from a supplier with additional stock that can minimize lead time delays and costs (see p93, p9-10, p38, 24, pP9-10, Abs. p76-77, 79-80, 83, p27, P31, Fig. 2, Saito).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cuttica and Saito teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Saito further teaches wherein a program instructions of a computer program further comprise: determining an inventory carrying cost for each plant of an organization with an excess amount of a first raw material needed to realize its predicted production rate for one or more products (Simulations of production supply prediction considering additional stock and inventory value cost, see p31, p9-10, 79, p76-77, 93, p40, Saito); and determining a system inventory carrying cost based on inventory carrying cost for each plant of an organization with excess amount of said first raw material needed to realize its predicted production rate for one or more products (Simulations of production supply prediction considering additional stock and inventory value cost with stock kept in factories, and deciding route, see 79, p31, p9-10, p76-77, 93, p40, Saito).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production as described by the combination that includes Cuttica and incorporating consideration of inventory, as taught by Saito.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better take into account values and costs in determining to distribute needed material from a supplier with additional stock that can minimize lead time delays and costs (see p93, p9-10, p38, 24, pP9-10, Abs. p76-77, 79-80, 83, p27, P31, Fig. 2, Saito).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cuttica and Saito teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Saito further teaches wherein a program instructions of a computer program further comprise: selecting an amount of a first raw material to be provided from a second plant to a first plant based on minimizing system inventory carrying cost (Supply from another factory planet of additional stock, considering minimization of material inventory, see p31, p9-10, p76-77, 93, p40, Saito).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production as described by the combination that includes Cuttica and incorporating consideration of inventory optimization, as taught by Saito.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better supply a needed material from a supplier with minimize lead time delays and costs (see p93, p9-10, p38, 24, pP9-10, Abs. p76-77, 79-80, 83, p27, P31, Fig. 2, Saito).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cuttica and Saito teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Saito further teaches wherein a program instructions of the computer program further comprise: determining a transportation cost for each of a plurality of simulated routes carrying said selected amount of first raw material from said second plant to said first plant (Selection of a distribution route that includes simulation considering distribution cost, see p31, 76, p9-10, 79, p76-77, 93, p40, Saito); and selecting a route out of said plurality of simulated routes to transport a selected amount of first raw material from a second plant to first plant by a transportation vehicle with a minimum transportation cost (Selection of a distribution route that includes simulation considering distribution cost minimization, see p31, 76, p9-10, 79, p76-77, 93, p40, Saito).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production as described by the combination that includes Cuttica and incorporating consideration of transportation costs, as taught by Saito.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better take into account costs in determining to distribute needed material from a supplier with additional stock that can minimize costs (see p93, p9-10, p38, 24, pP9-10, Abs. p76-77, 79-80, 83, p27, P31, Fig. 2, Saito).
Claim 7 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, Cuttica teaches a computer program product for efficient resource utilization using capacity planning, the computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage mediums having program code embodied therewith (Memory storing program for production planning, see pg. 9 Para 5; Pg. 2 para 4, Cuttica. Note: the instant application’s pre-grant publication paragraph 83 clarifies that a computer readable storage media is not to be construed as transitory signals per se.), the program code comprising programming instructions for:
Claim 14 is further rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 11.
Claims 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuttica, in view of Saito, in further view of “Digital Twin Integrated Reinforced Learning in Supply Chain and Logistics” Logistics Vol. 5 Iss. 4, 84, 11/26/2021, 23 pgs., by Abideen et al., (hereinafter Abideen) .
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cuttica and Saito teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Cuttica further teaches wherein program instructions of a computer program further comprise: receiving feedback from Internet of Things (IoT) sensors (Sensors that provide feedback on a system, see Pg. 2 paras, 5, 11; pg. 7 paras. 11, 5; Pg. 4 P11; Pg. 5 p18; Pg. 9 p7, Cuttica)
Cuttica does not explicitly teach receiving feedback from Internet of Things (IoT) sensors regarding current weather conditions, road conditions, vehicle conditions and route details.
However, Abideen, from the same or similar field of supply chain logistics, teaches receiving feedback from Internet of Things (IoT) sensors regarding current weather conditions, road conditions, vehicle conditions and route details ( Measurement data feeding information including traffic (i.e. road conditions), routes and vehicle location, environmental conditions, etc., see Pg. 15 Sec. 5.4 1st Para.; Pg. 6 Sec. 2.5; Pg. 4 Sec. 2.3 1st para.; Pg. 10 Table 2; Pg. 1 Introduction; Pg. 7 Second to last para., Abideen).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production as described by the combination that includes Cuttica and incorporating consideration of transport conditions as taught by Abideen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better take into account conditions that reflect and affect supply conditions, and that permits optimizing supply chain (see Pg. 15 Sec. 5.4 1st Para.; Pg. 6 Sec. 2.5; Pg. 4 Sec. 2.3 1st para.; Pg. 10 Table 2; Pg. 1 Introduction; Pg. 7 Second to last para., Abideen).
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Cuttica, Saito, and Abideen teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Abideen further teaches updating a selected route or altering an amount of a first raw material to be provided by a transportation vehicle based on feedback (Flexible and real-time decision making processes using fed back data such as traffic, etc., to outline routes, has the implication of updating a truck’s route, see Pg. 6 Sec. 2.5; Pg. 15 Sec. 5.4 1st Para.; Pg. 4 Sec. 2.3 1st para.; Pg. 10 Table 2; Pg. 1 Introduction; Pg. 7 Second to last para., Abideen).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production as described by the combination that includes Cuttica and incorporating updating of route or material supplied, as taught by Abideen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better take into account conditions that reflect and affect supply conditions, and that permits optimizing supply transportation distribution in a flexible manner (see Pg. 6 Sec. 2.5; Pg. 15 Sec. 5.4 1st Para.; Pg. 4 Sec. 2.3 1st para.; Pg. 10 Table 2; Pg. 1 Introduction; Pg. 7 Second to last para., Abideen).
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 12.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 13.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Onizawa et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2005/0182505 teaches manufacturing line input order planning.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights