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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is a First Office Action on the merits in reply to application number 18/038,295 filed on 05/23/2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 05/23/2023 and 07/19/2024, and 08/21/2024 have been considered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 USC 119 and/or 35 USC 120 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Grammatical error in the text of the claim: “…and accumulates accumulate the production capacities…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Error in the language of the preamble: In particular, claim 8 is directed to a “spare capacity response system,” however the transition phrase preceding the bodily limitations recites “wherein the spare capacity calculation device includes:”, but should instead recite “wherein the spare capacity response system includes:”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claimed invention is analyzed to determine if it falls outside one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03
Claims 1-7 are directed to a device (i.e., Item of Manufacture), claim 8 is directed to a system (i.e., Machine), and claims 9-10 are directed to a method (i.e., Process), for inquiring and calculating material availability and production capacity. Therefore, claims 1-10 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04
Independent claims 1, 8, and 9 recite limitations that fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping that set forth concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent Claim 1 recites a spare capacity calculation device with limitations for: “accept an input of a process capability to be made available for each unit period for each production process of a target product, and an input of the number of materials to be made available for each unit period”, “calculate an accumulated material number by accumulating the number of materials in time series from a predetermined point in the past, and calculating calculate the available number of materials by subtracting a cumulative production capacity accumulated up to an immediately preceding unit period among cumulative production capacities, each of which is a value obtained by accumulating a production capacity in each unit period in time series from the accumulated material number”, and “determine the smaller one of the number of products that can be produced, which is calculated based on the process capability, and the number of products that can be produced, which is calculated based on the available number of materials, as the production capacity, and accumulates accumulate the production capacities in time series from a predetermined point in the past to calculate the cumulative production capacity for each unit period”. Independent Claim 8 recites a spare capacity response system with limitations for: “sends an inquiry about a production capacity to a spare capacity calculation device which calculates the spare capacity of a target product and responds, wherein the spare capacity calculation device includes: input means for accepting an input of a process capability to be made available for each unit period for each production process of the target product, and an input of the number of materials to be made available for each unit period”, “accumulating the number of materials in time series from a predetermined point in the past, and calculating the available number of materials by subtracting a cumulative production capacity accumulated up to an immediately preceding unit period among cumulative production capacities, each of which is a value obtained by accumulating a production capacity in each unit period in time series from the accumulated material number”, and “determines the smaller one of the number of products that can be produced, which is calculated based on the process capability, and the number of products that can be produced, which is calculated based on the available number of materials, as the production capacity, and accumulates the production capacities in time series from a predetermined point in the past to calculate the cumulative production capacity for each unit period”. Independent Claim 9 recites a spare capacity calculation method with limitations for: “accepting an input of a process capability to be made available for each unit period for each production process of a target product, and an input of the number of materials to be made available for each unit period”, “calculating an accumulated material number by accumulating the number of materials in time series from a predetermined point in the past, and calculating the available number of materials by subtracting a cumulative production capacity accumulated up to an immediately preceding unit period among cumulative production capacities, each of which is a value obtained by accumulating a production capacity in each unit period in time series from the accumulated material number”, and “determining the smaller one of the number of products that can be produced, which is calculated based on the process capability, and the number of products that can be produced, which is calculated based on the available number of materials, as the production capacity, and accumulating the production capacities in time series from a predetermined point in the past to calculate the cumulative production capacity for each unit period”.
As drafted, under the BRI of the claimed invention, claims 1, 8, and 9 recite an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” but for the recitation of the following additional elements (to be considered in Step 2A, Prong 2 below): memory, processors, input means, and calculation means.
Dependent claims 2-7, and 10 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Step 2A, Prong 2: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea, specifically, memory, processors, input means, and calculation means serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., receiving, determining, generating, intervening, monitoring, tracking, compiling, transmitting, detecting, calculating, advancing, storing and controlling) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components (e.g., processor, memory, computer-readable medium) after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic principles or practices, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, mental processes, or mathematical concepts) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the receiving, processing, generating, sending, and providing activities are interpreted as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they only use a computer, computer components, as tools. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). See MPEP 2106.05.
Claims 1-10 do not include anything that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, nor do they provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Generic computer features, such as a processor, memory, or computer-readable medium are fundamental parts of operating systems and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These limitations merely describe implementation of the invention using elements of a general purpose system, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Federal Circuit 2015).
For example, Applicant’s specification, such as in [0021], where the specification or drawings do not provide any particular structure/function associated with the processors, other than the well-understood actions to operate according to a program. Or in [0011], where the specification or drawings do provide any particular structure/function associated with the calculation means or input means, other than the well-understood actions for calculating, and accepting an input. Additionally, the specification or drawings do not provide any additional information on the memory cited in the claims.
Therefore, the functions of the claims are deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by Applicant’s own disclosure and by prior art. Therefore, as shown Section 2106.05(d), the 2B features of the invention are “routine and conventional.”
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements adds to something significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and generic equipment utilization. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-7, and 10 do not introduce any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
From Claim 8: “input means for accepting an input…”, and “calculation means for calculating …”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 these limitations 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
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations of “wherein the spare capacity calculation device includes: input means for accepting an input of a process capability to be made available for each unit period for each production process of the target product, and an input of the number of materials to be made available for each unit period”, and “calculation means for calculating an accumulated material number by accumulating the number of materials in time series from a predetermined point in the past, and calculating the available number of materials by subtracting a cumulative production capacity accumulated up to an immediately preceding unit period among cumulative production capacities, each of which is a value obtained by accumulating a production capacity in each unit period in time series from the accumulated material number” render the bounds of the claim unclear. It is unclear what the “input means for…”, and “calculation means for…” of the claim are. The present claim invokes 35 USC 112(f) and does not recite sufficient structure to perform the entire claimed function. Upon viewing the specification, Paragraphs [0010-0011] disclose the “calculation means for”, and the “input means for” and do not recite any particular structure associated with said means. The present claims are indefinite because the structure/materials/acts that are capable of performing the function are present in the disclosure but the disclosure does not clearly link the corresponding structure to the claimed “means”. Therefore, the present claims invoke 35 USC 112(f) and there is no clear linkage disclosed between the “calculation means for”, or the “input means for” and the corresponding structure and algorithm capable of performing the claimed function within the specification.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claim limitations of “wherein the spare capacity calculation device includes: input means for accepting an input of a process capability to be made available for each unit period for each production process of the target product, and an input of the number of materials to be made available for each unit period”, and “calculation means for calculating an accumulated material number by accumulating the number of materials in time series from a predetermined point in the past, and calculating the available number of materials by subtracting a cumulative production capacity accumulated up to an immediately preceding unit period among cumulative production capacities, each of which is a value obtained by accumulating a production capacity in each unit period in time series from the accumulated material number” invoke 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, the specification does not adequately disclose how the “calculation means for”, or the “input means for” perform the entire claimed function. The specification is devoid of any link between the “calculation means for”, or the “input means for” of paragraphs [0010-0011] and structure capable of performing the claimed function. As the instant disclosure fails to disclose, whether expressly, implicitly, or inherently, the structure, material, or acts associated with the automated distribution system, the present claims are rejected for lacking adequate written description of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norman (US 20170075333 A1), in view of Bildmayer et al. (US 20140364983 A1), in further view of Sandighian et al. (US 9818082 B1)
Regarding Claim 1, Norman teaches a spare capacity calculation device with limitations for:
a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: [0013] teaches a planning system. The planning system includes at least one processor and a memory. The memory stores a computer program that, when executed by the at least one processor, performs an operation for executing a BB workflow to perform a planning process.
accept an input of a process capability to be made available for each unit period for each production process of a target product, and an input of the number of materials to be made available for each unit period: [0027] teaches: Upon receiving a request to generate a plan (e.g., initiated by a user), the BB planning component extracts (or retrieves) planning data. Generally, the planning data includes information that describes an operating state of the manufacturing environment (e.g., present and estimated future factory capacity information, number of tools, processing speeds of the tools, additional tools needed to produce a given product, etc.) and information describing a set of demands for one or more products to be produced from the manufacturing environment (e.g., sale orders for the products, projected sales for the products, requested ship dates, etc.). Paragraph [0033] teaches: The ERP system 155 is configured to collect, store, manage and interpret data related to resources within the manufacturing environment (e.g., amount of capital, raw materials, production capacity, etc.). Paragraph [0060] teaches: the planning data includes information characteristic of the manufacturing environment 100 (e.g., such as information regarding the current WIP, availability of one or more devices operating in the manufacturing environment, operating parameters of the one or more devices, etc.)
calculate an accumulated material number by accumulating the number of materials in time series from a predetermined point in the past: [0033] The ERP system 155 is configured to collect, store, manage and interpret data related to resources within the manufacturing environment, current and future commitments within the manufacturing environment (e.g., orders, projected sales, delivery dates, etc.), information related to supply chain management (e.g., such as information that describes movement and storage of raw materials, WIP inventory, amount of finished goods, finances, and other information related to the flow of goods and services from supplier to ultimately the consumer), and the like. [0035] Each plan can determine the future operating state of the manufacturing system over any length of period of time (e.g., every two weeks, month, year, etc.).
calculate the available number of materials by subtracting a cumulative production capacity accumulated up to an immediately preceding unit period among cumulative production capacities, each of which is a value obtained by accumulating a production capacity in each unit period in time series from the accumulated material number: [0033] teaches: data related to resources within the manufacturing environment (e.g., amount of capital, raw materials, production capacity, etc.), information related to supply chain management (e.g., such as information that describes movement and storage of raw materials, WIP inventory, amount of finished goods, finances, and other information related to the flow of goods and services from supplier to ultimately the consumer), and the like. [0035] teaches: Each plan can determine the future operating state of the manufacturing system over any length of period of time (e.g., every two weeks, month, year, etc.).
However, Norman does not explicitly teach the following limitations, further taught by Bildmayer:
determine the smaller one of the number of products that can be produced, which is calculated based on the process capability, and the number of products that can be produced, which is calculated based on the available number of materials, as the production capacity: Fig. 3: Perform “available-to-promise” check. [0035] At 306, an "available-to-promise" check can be performed by the system 200 (shown in FIG. 2). The available-to-promise check can include checking available stock, expected supply and demand, capacity constraints, and/or any other factors. [0038] At 406, a matching delivery date can be identified or determined based on available capacities of the production plant as well as production plant capacities that may be already used by other existing sales orders.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Norman to incorporate the teachings of Bildmayer to include the limitations for: “determine the smaller one of the number of products that can be produced, which is calculated based on the process capability, and the number of products that can be produced, which is calculated based on the available number of materials, as the production capacity”. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order for the customer to receive an instantaneous information about the confirmed delivery date (Bildmayer; [0040]). By incorporating the teachings of Bildmayer, one would’ve been able to calculate production capacity for each unit period.
However, Norman and Bildmayer does not explicitly teach the following limitations, further taught by Sandighian:
accumulate the production capacities in time series from a predetermined point in the past to calculate the cumulative production capacity for each unit period: Fig. 2: Capacity Management System 112, Inventory Management System 114, Inventory Data 212. [Page 11, column 5, lines 47-59] teaches: The capacity management system 112 may be configured to perform long term (e.g., a year) strategic decisions with respect to how much capacity should be acquired. Capacity may represent a capacity to inventory a volume of items and may include storage capacity (e.g., cubic feet of storage) and resource capacity (e.g., manpower to handle and process items for storage). Generally, if the projected capacity (e.g., the how much should be acquired) is below what currently exists, no new capacity is needed; otherwise new capacity should be acquired. The capacity management system 112 may perform this analysis by estimating revenue (and hence demand) growth, as well as introduction of new items to the inventory 120.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Norman and Bildmayer to incorporate the teachings of Sandighian to include the limitations for: “accumulate the production capacities in time series from a predetermined point in the past to calculate the cumulative production capacity for each unit period”. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to determine when new capacity should be acquired (Sandighian; [Page 11, column 5, line 49]). By incorporating the teachings of Sandighian, one would’ve been able to calculate the number of goods that can be produced.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination or Norman, Bildmayer, and Sandighian teaches: The spare capacity calculation device according to claim 1.
Norman further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions: [0013] The planning system includes at least one processor and a memory. The memory stores a computer program that, when executed by the at least one processor, performs an operation for executing a BB workflow to perform a planning process.
However, Norman doesn’t explicitly teach the following limitations, further taught by Sandighian:
calculate a disposal number based on the number of materials past their usable period: Fig. 1: Inventory Management System 114, Removal Management System 116, Removal Channel 160. [Page 11, column 6, lines 14-17] teaches: the removal management system 116 may be configured to perform short term (e.g., a week) strategic decisions with respect to how to use the removal channel 160. [Page 14, column 11, lines 7-11] teaches: the inventory management system 114 may become the main manager of complexities inherent in removing inventory (returns, anticipated target inventory positions, modifying forecasts to account for product lifecycles, etc.). (Examiner’s Note: One skilled in the art would reasonably interpret Norman’s product lifecycle as encompassing the period from concept, to end-of-life, point in time after which a material or product is past their usable period.).
calculate the number of remaining materials based on the calculated disposal number: [Page 10, column 3, lines 36-38] teaches: At the end of the week, the inventory levels for televisions and laptops may be checked to determine the quantities that were actually removed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Norman, Bildmayer, and Sandighian to incorporate the additional teachings of Sandighian to include the limitations for: “calculate a disposal number based on the number of materials past their usable period”, and “calculate the number of remaining materials based on the calculated disposal number”. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to ensure that the volume removal decision is properly executed (Sandighian; [Page 10, column 3, lines 47-48]). By incorporating the teachings of Sandighian, one would’ve been able to track the disposal of material/products.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination or Norman, Bildmayer, and Sandighian teaches: The spare capacity calculation device according to claim 2.
Norman further teaches:
calculate the available number which is the number of materials to be made available for a target unit period by adding the number of remaining materials immediately before each unit period and the number of materials to be made available for the target unit period: [0023] teaches: the production plan can be used to determine capacity of the manufacturing environment to produce one or more products, determine which products have to be produced in what amounts and/or by which tools (or equipment) in the manufacturing environment in order to meet demand, predict ship dates for products, determine what future capacity (e.g., additional tools, resources, etc.) is needed to satisfy demand, run one or more planning experiments to determine operations, resources, what future demands can be supported, etc. within the manufacturing environment. [0060] teaches: the planning data includes information characteristic of the manufacturing environment 100, metadata related to movement and storage of raw materials, WIP inventory, amount of finished goods, orders for products, projected sales, etc.
However, Norman doesn’t explicitly teach the following limitations, further taught by Bildmayer:
determine the smaller one of the number of products that can be produced, which is calculated based on the process capability, and the number of products that can be produced, which is calculated based on the available number of materials, as the production capacity: Fig. 3: Perform “available-to-promise” check. [0035] At 306, an "available-to-promise" check can be performed by the system 200 (shown in FIG. 2). The available-to-promise check can include checking available stock, expected supply and demand, capacity constraints, and/or any other factors. [0038] At 406, a matching delivery date can be identified or determined based on available capacities of the production plant as well as production plant capacities that may be already used by other existing sales orders.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Norman, Bildmayer, and Sandighiam to incorporate the additional teachings of Bildmayer to include the limitations for: “determine the smaller one of the number of products that can be produced, which is calculated based on the process capability, and the number of products that can be produced, which is calculated based on the available number of materials, as the production capacity”. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order for the customer to receive an instantaneous information about the confirmed delivery date (Bildmayer; [0040]). By incorporating the teachings of Bildmayer, one would’ve been able to calculate production capacity for each unit period.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination or Norman, Bildmayer, and Sandighian teaches: The spare capacity calculation device according to claim 3.
However, Norman doesn’t explicitly teach the following limitations, further taught by Sandighian:
calculate a cumulative use-expired number obtained by accumulating use-expired numbers for each unit period which are the number of materials past their usable period in the target unit period: [Page 9, column 2, lines 30-42] teaches: a constraint on a level of inventory of an item as part of finding the optimal quantity of the item to remove. In an example, a decision may be made about the total volume of items to remove over a planning horizon (e.g., a year). An analysis of the inventory level of the item may be performed for different time periods (e.g., on weekly basis) of the planning horizon (e.g., the year).
calculate a cumulative disposal number obtained by accumulating the disposal number actually disposed for each unit period: [Page 9, column 2, lines 54-57] teaches: Once a quantity of the item and the removal channel(s) to use within a time period is determined, actual performance (e.g., the actual removed quantity) may be monitored.
regard the greater value of 0 and a value obtained by subtracting the cumulative production capacity and the cumulative disposal number up to the immediately preceding unit period from the use-expired number as the disposal number for the target unit period: [Page 14, column 12, lines 62-65] teaches: Execution of the removal plan may be monitored over time by tracking the actual performance (e.g., quantities that are being removed versus the planned quantities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Norman, Bildmayer, and Sandighian to incorporate the additional teachings of Sandighian to include the limitations for: “calculate a cumulative use-expired number obtained by accumulating use-expired numbers for each unit period which are the number of materials past their usable period in the target unit period”, “calculate a cumulative disposal number obtained by accumulating the disposal number actually disposed for each unit period”, and “regard the greater value of 0 and a value obtained by subtracting the cumulative production capacity and the cumulative disposal number up to the immediately preceding unit period from the use-expired number as the disposal number for the target unit period”. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to update the removal plan based on the actual performance (Sandighian; [Page 14, column 12, line 67 to Page 15, column 13, line 1]). By incorporating the teachings of Sandighian, one would’ve been able to track the disposal of material/products.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination or Norman, Bildmayer, and Sandighian teaches: The spare capacity calculation device according to claim 3.
However, Norman doesn’t explicitly teach the following limitations, further taught by Sandighian:
calculate the number of remaining materials in each unit period by subtracting the production capacity and the disposal number from the available number: [Page 11, column 6, lines 29-32] teaches: the inventory management system 114 may generate a plan for how much inventory should be funneled to different types of the removal channel 160 or kept for future use. [Page 12, column 7, lines 45-47] teaches: A database or some other storage type may store the inventory data 212. The inventory data 212 may represent data related to the inventory 120.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Norman, Bildmayer, and Sandighian to incorporate the additional teachings of Sandighian to include the limitations for: “calculate the number of remaining materials in each unit period by subtracting the production capacity and the disposal number from the available number”. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to implement different planning models for analyzing different portions of the inventory data 212 (Sandighian; [Page 12, column 8, lines 8-10]). By incorporating the teachings of Sandighian, one would’ve been able to track the availability of material/products.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination or Norman, Bildmayer, and Sandighian teaches: The spare capacity calculation device according to claim 1.
Norman further teaches:
accept an input of the process capability for each unit period for each production process of an intermediate part which is a material used in the production of the target product, and an input of the number of materials of the intermediate part available for each unit period: [0032] teaches: The MES 150 and ERP system 155 are generally configured to manage and control the operation of a current work-in-progress (WIP) within the manufacturing environment 100. The MES 150 can store the data (received from the tools) into factory storage system 140. Such information stored in the factory storage system 140 can include information regarding the current WIP, number of tools in the manufacturing environment, operating parameters (e.g., processing speeds, capacity load, and the like) of the tools, manufacturing data, and other metadata characteristic of the manufacturing environment 100. (Examiner’s Note: One skilled in the art would reasonably interpret Norman’s WIP to be inclusive of sub-assemblies or intermediate parts available within a manufacturing environment.)
calculate a production capacity of the intermediate part for each unit period: [0032] teaches: information stored in the factory storage system 140 can include information regarding the current WIP, number of tools in the manufacturing environment, operating parameters (e.g., processing speeds, capacity load, and the like).
However, Norman doesn’t explicitly teach the following limitations, further taught by Bildmayer:
calculate the production capacity of the product by using the calculated production capacity as the number of materials available for the production of the product: [0031] The production 206 can interact with the company 204 to inform the company 204 as to its capacity production bandwidth 224 based on the received customer order (or orders) 225 from the company 204. The production 206 can also interact with various resources 208 (e.g., labor resources, financial resources, etc.) and suppliers 210 (e.g., raw materials, parts, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Norman, Bildmayer, and Sandighiam to incorporate the additional teachings of Bildmayer to include the limitations for: “calculate the production capacity of the product by using the calculated production capacity as the number of materials available for the production of the product”. One would’ve been motivated to do so, so that capacity can be expressed in quantities (e.g., pieces, money units, and/or any other units of measure) per time (e.g., per day, per week, per month, and/or any other predetermined time period) (Bildmayer; [0032]). By incorporating the teachings of Bildmayer, one would’ve been able to calculate production capacity based on available inventory.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination or Norman, Bildmayer, and Sandighian teaches: The spare capacity calculation device according to claim 6.
However, Norman doesn’t explicitly teach the following limitations, further taught by Sandighian:
calculate the production capacity of the target product for each unit period depending on a usable period of the intermediate part produced: [Page 11, column 6, lines 8-12] teaches: the capacity management system 112 may inform the inventory management system 114 about the amount and timing of that capacity (or, conversely, the amount and timing of inventory volume that should be removed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Norman, Bildmayer, and Sandighian to incorporate the additional teachings of Sandighian to include the limitations for: “calculate the production capacity of the target product for each unit period depending on a usable period of the intermediate part produced”. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to make strategic decisions with respect to how to use the removal channel 160 (Sandighian; [Page 11, column 6, lines 14-17]). By incorporating the teachings of Sandighian, one would’ve been able to incorporate material shelf life into capacity calculations.
Regarding Claim 8, Norman teaches a spare capacity response system comprising:
a terminal which sends an inquiry about a production capacity to a spare capacity calculation device: [0060] teaches: BB planning component 120 receives a BB workflow (e.g., from a user). (Examiner’s Note: One skilled in the art would reasonably interpret Norman’s BB planning component’s receipt of a BB workflow from a user as being from a user terminal connected to the system because Norman’s sending/receiving functions are accomplished by communication between an I/O device (e.g., Fig. 7) and the BB planning component performing the functions of the spare capacity calculation device.).
which calculates the spare capacity of a target product and responds: [0027] teaches: The BB planning component may process the converted data to generate a plan for the manufacturing environment. The generated plan can determine at least one of when the manufacturing environment will be able to ship the one or more products, predict whether the manufacturing environment will be able to meet the set of demands for the one or more products, determine at least one change that should be made to the manufacturing environment to satisfy the set of demands, or can be used to run one or more experiments to determine operations of the manufacturing environment. The BB planning component can publish the plan to at least one of the spreadsheet application or a storage system in the manufacturing environment.
wherein the spare capacity calculation device includes: input means for accepting an input of a process capability to be made available for each unit period for each production process of the target product, and an input of the number of materials to be made available for each unit period: [0027] teaches: Upon receiving a request to generate a plan (e.g., initiated by a user), the BB planning component extracts (or retrieves) planning data. Generally, the planning data includes information that describes an operating state of the manufacturing environment (e.g., present and estimated future factory capacity information, number of tools, processing speeds of the tools, additional to