..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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment for application number 18/038,295 received on 09/26/2025.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1-10 are amended, currently pending, and have been examined.
Priority
Applicants claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/26/2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Upon review of the amended claims, the objections previously applied to the claims are withdrawn.
Upon review of the amended claims, the §112(b)/ §112(a) rejections previously applied to the claims are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §101 rejections previously applied to the original claims have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks at pgs. 10-11) – “As an initial matter, it is respectfully submitted that the limitations recited in the independent claims: "accept, for a target product, an input ..." and "output to a terminal, in response to an inquiry about a production capacity, the determined production capacity and whether production can proceed to the subsequent process" cannot be performed in the human mind.”. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, as recited, the actions to accept an input and output the determined production capacity can be reasonably performed in the human mind, or with the help of pen and paper. The additional element to a terminal fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or otherwise add significantly more to the abstract idea because it amounts to using generic computing components (par. [0021] The terminal 10 uses a processor of a computer operating according to a program) or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, even if the step to “output to a terminal” is interpreted as an additional element, this step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Applicant further argues (Remarks at pg. 11) – “Furthermore, even if the claims are found to recite an abstract idea in Prong One of Step 2A, under Prong Two, the claims are directed to a practical application of such an abstract idea. The independent claims are amended and recite detailed and specific limitations further defining determining for each unit of period a production capacity and whether the determined production capacity and whether production can proceed to the subsequent process based on a usable period of an intermediate part. These specific limitations describe how using process constraints and availability periods (including expiration) from a bill of process and bill of materials as inputs, and updating state variables such as cumulative production number, cumulative disposal number, and available number are then utilized to make control decisions regarding whether production of the target product can proceed to a subsequent process.”. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the steps for determining production capacity and determining whether production can proceed (as well as all other claim limitations), as currently recited, can be reasonably performed in the human mind or with the help of pen and paper.
Applicant further argues (Remarks at pg. 11) – “The specification highlights technical problems in the art. The specification states that in a manufacturing context, suppliers are burdened with managing variations in productions. Specification, ¶ 3-5. The specification states that a solution to this problem is for the manufacturer to request the supplier to place an order for a variable amount based on a spare capacity (spare productive capacity) of the supplier taking into consideration processes and materials required for production of a product. Id., ¶ 7, 15. This enables both a manufacturer and a supplier to determine the spare capacity by taking into consideration processes and materials required for production of a product. Id., ¶ 6-9.”. In response, Examiner notes that the items discussed above (e.g., manufacturer’s request for supplier to place an order) are irrelevant to the analysis because these features are not recited or required by the claim. Applicant’s argument lacks merit because is relies on limitations not required by the claims and it would be improper to import such limitations from the Specification. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also, CollegeNet, Inc. v. Apply Yourself Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims).
Response to §103 arguments – Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §103 rejections previously applied to the original claims are primarily raised in support of the amendments to the independent claims, which are believed to be fully addressed by the updated §103 rejections below.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
From claim 8: “A spare capacity response system comprising a terminal configured to send an inquiry…”, and “…the spare capacity calculation device is configured to calculate the spare capacity…”.
Claim 8 invokes §112(f) because it recite the nonce terms “terminal”, and “spare capacity calculation device” followed by functional language, without being modified by sufficient structure to perform the actions/steps of the recited limitations.
When looking to the specification, the following is disclosed:
With respect to the “terminal”, par. [0050] discloses: “The terminal 10 uses a processor of a computer operating according to a program to realize the inquiry to the spare capacity calculation device 20.”. This is to be the interpretation given to “terminal”.
However, the specification and drawings are silent regarding the structure associated with the “spare capacity calculation device”.
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/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because the bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. In particular, the claims recite:
From independent claim 8: “…the spare capacity calculation device is configured to calculate the spare capacity…”.
It is unclear what the following are: “spare capacity calculation device”. The drafting of the claim is not clear, such that the introduction of these claim elements is supported by what they actually are. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing would not readily recognize the meaning of claim limitations “spare capacity calculation device”. Therefore, the bounds of the claim are unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting, under BRI, the “spare capacity calculation device” as computer hardware and/or software (i.e., generic computing elements), specifically a memory storing instructions, and one or more processors (supported by independent claim 1).
In this instance, Specification is silent regarding any specific structure by which the profile is embodied. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Accordingly, claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
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/are 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 independent claim 8, as stated above, the claim limitations 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 “spare capacity calculation device” perform the entire claimed function.
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 requires that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention.” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing history and purpose of the written description requirement). To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Claim 8 recites the limitation of: “…the spare capacity calculation device is configured to calculate the spare capacity of a target product and responds…”.
Claim 8 fails to satisfy the written description requirement of §112(a) because there is no evidence of a complete specific application or embodiment to satisfy the requirement that the description is set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. See Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971).
Accordingly, claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
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. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as further set forth in MPEP 2106.
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
Claim(s) 1-7 are directed to a device (i.e., Manufacture), claim(s) 8 is directed to a system (i.e., Machine), and claim(s) 9-10 are directed to a method (i.e., Process). Therefore, all claims are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
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 a device, a system, and a method for calculating spare capacity. As drafted, the limitations recited by the independent claims fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea group by setting forth activities that could be performed mentally by a human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Independent claim 1recites a device comprising a memory storing instructions and one or more processors for calculating spare capacity with the following limitations:
accept, for a target product, an input of a bill of process that represents a process flow for each part in assembling the product, and a bill of materials that represents a list of parts including a hierarchical structure, and accept an input of a process capability to be made available for each unit period for each production process of a target product, a number of materials to be made available for each unit period; (The step to “accept an input“ could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, even if considered as an additional element, this step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering);
calculate an accumulated material number by accumulating the number of materials in time series from a predetermined point in the past, and 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; (The step to “calculate an accumulated material number“ could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.);
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, (The step to “determine the smaller one of the number of products that can be produced“ could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.);
and accumulate the production capacities in time series from a predetermined point in the past to calculate the cumulative production capacity for each unit period; (The step to “accumulate the production capacities“ could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.);
and determine, for each unit period, whether production of the target product can proceed to a subsequent process based on a usable period of an intermediate part and the determined production capacity, and output to a terminal, in response to an inquiry about a production capacity, the determined production capacity and whether production can proceed to the subsequent process. (The step to “determine whether production of the target product can proceed to a subsequent process“ and “output the determined production capacity” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, even if considered as an additional element, the step to “output the determined production capacity” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering).
Independent claims 8, and 9 recite a system and a method with limitations that are substantially similar to the limitations recited by claim 1, therefore the same analysis applies. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B recited by the independent claims are: memory, one or more processors, terminal, and spare capacity calculation device.
Dependent claims 2-7, and 10 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration. That is, the dependent claims include the same additional elements recited by the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: An evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely memory, one or more processors, terminal, and spare capacity calculation device, these 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 equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). 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 (generic computing environment).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 "inventive concept." See MPEP 2106.05.
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely memory, one or more processors, terminal, and spare capacity calculation device, these additional element(s) has/have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements (computer hardware) or instructions/software (engine) 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, the internet, online) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s specification recites the computing additional elements at a high level of generality. Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. 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 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Furthermore, even if the accept an input, and output the determined production capacity steps are interpreted as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering and insignificant application, respectively), which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the accept an input, and output the determined production capacity extra-solution activities have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
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. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. 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. The ordered combination of elements in the claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 James et al. (EP 0425405 A2, hereinafter “James”), in further view of Bildmayer et al. (US 20140364983 A1), in further view of Sandighian et al. (US 9818082 B1)
Regarding claims 1/8/9: Norman teaches a device comprising a memory storing instructions and one or more processors ([0013] a planning system for a semiconductor manufacturing environment. 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), a system ([0013] a planning system for a semiconductor manufacturing environment.), and a method ([0019] FIG. 5 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for performing a planning process) for calculating spare capacity with limitations for:
and accept an input of a process capability to be made available for each unit period for each production process of a target product, a number of materials to be made available for each unit period; ([0027] 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.).);
and 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] 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.).);
Norman doesn’t teach:
accept, for a target product, an input of a bill of process that represents a process flow for each part in assembling the product, and a bill of materials that represents a list of parts including a hierarchical structure,
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 accumulate the production capacities in time series from a predetermined point in the past to calculate the cumulative production capacity for each unit period;
and determine, for each unit period, whether production of the target product can proceed to a subsequent process based on a usable period of an intermediate part and the determined production capacity, and output to a terminal, in response to an inquiry about a production capacity, the determined production capacity and whether production can proceed to the subsequent process.
James teaches:
accept, for a target product, an input of a bill of process that represents a process flow for each part in assembling the product, and a bill of materials that represents a list of parts including a hierarchical structure, ([Column 2, Lines 3-36] Master Production Schedule Planning maintains the produc-tion schedules for each item to be manufactured by a company or facility. Together, for all end items, produc-tion schedules represent the overall manufacturing program for a plant. The major functions typically provided by the Master Production Schedule Planning application are: a) Estimate demand on company resources, b) Provide information to determine the best production schedule for each item, c) Maintain a master production schedule as changes occur, and d) Provide a simulation or "what-if" capability to test changes in the master production schedule or changes in capacity. Master Schedule Production Planning is the primary input into Material Requirements Planning, assuring that ade-quate lead time will be available to order materials and that capacity will be available to manufacture the planned production. Engineering and Production Data Control provides the creation, organization, maintenance and communication of the basic engineering records within a company. These include: a) Bills of material, or "parts lists", which describe the components that make up a product, and b) Manufacturing routings, or "process sheets", which describe the sequence of operations performed in the fabrication/assembly of a product, and the resource used in each step of the process. The various ele-ments comprising the manufacturing lead time are included for each operation.);
and determine, for each unit period, whether production of the target product can proceed to a subsequent process based on a usable period of an intermediate part and the determined production capacity, and output to a terminal, in response to an inquiry about a production capacity, the determined production capacity and whether production can proceed to the subsequent process. ([Column 1, Lines 36-46] Many manufacturing systems available in today's market provide the capability to make changes to customer orders based on allocations and "available to commit" quantities but do not provide capabilities to check capacity before committing to customers if inventory is not readily available. When customers' order quantities exceed the "available to commit" quantities, current systems do not provide any means to compare the requested orders with available capacity on a dynamic scale.; [Column 2, Lines 18-22] Master Schedule Production Planning is the primary input into Material Requirements Planning, assuring that adequate lead time will be available to order materials and that capacity will be available to manufacture the planned production.; [Column 8, Line 39 – Column 9, Line 6] Following the process shown in Figure 3 at function blocks 91 and 92 of explosion and offsetting, the logic of the MRP system is also used to net the requirements statement created by the previous step against the material which is expected to be available. The netting process is a feature of the MRP system and is shown in Figure 3 by function block 93. A test is then made in decision block 94 to determine if material is available for the customer requirements and, if so, the system proceeds to determine if capacity is available in Figure 4 beginning at function block 96. Determination of user production capacity in the next steps is known in prior art Capacity Requirements Planning (CRP) systems. The CRP system logic performs the process of using routing and process data to determine the load to user production imposed by customer requirements. The CRP system then adds this load to cumulative load requirements in function block 97, and the sum is subtracted from a predefined user production capacity in function block 98. At this point, a test is made to determine if the customer specified date can be made in decision block 100. If so, the process goes to function block 50 in Figure 5; otherwise, the process loops back to function block 95 in Figure 3.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Norman with James’ feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to verify if production capacity is available to meet delivery dates requested by the customer or suggested by MRP (James; [Abstract]). By incorporating the teachings of James, one would’ve been able to consider material availability and capacity to decide if/when to move to the next step of the process.
James doesn’t teach:
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 accumulate the production capacities in time series from a predetermined point in the past to calculate the cumulative production capacity for each unit period;
Bildmayer teaches:
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, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Norman with Bildmayer’s feature(s) listed above. 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.
Bildmayer doesn’t teach:
and accumulate the production capacities in time series from a predetermined point in the past to calculate the cumulative production capacity for each unit period;
Sandighian teaches:
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] 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, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Norman with Sandighian’s feature(s) listed above. 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 claims 2/10: 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.
Norman doesn’t teach:
calculate a disposal number based on the number of materials past their usable period
calculate the number of remaining materials based on the calculated disposal number
Sandighian teaches:
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] 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, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Norman with Sandighian’s feature(s) listed above. 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: 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.).
Norman doesn’t teach:
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
Bildmayer teaches:
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, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Norman with Bildmayer’s feature(s) listed above. 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: Norman doesn’t teach:
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
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
Sandighian teaches:
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] 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] 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] 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, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Norman with Sandighian’s feature(s) listed above. 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: Norman doesn’t teach:
calculate the number of remaining materials in each unit period by subtracting the production capacity and the disposal number from the available number
Sandighian teaches:
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, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Norman with Sandighian’s feature(s) listed above. 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: 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).).
Norman doesn’t teach:
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
Bildmayer teaches:
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, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Norman with Bildmayer’s feature(s) listed above. 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: Norman doesn’t teach:
calculate the production capacity of the target product for each unit period depending on a usable period of the intermediate part produced
Sandighian teaches:
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, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Norman with Sandighian’s feature(s) listed above. 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J TORRES CHANZA whose telephone number is (571)272-3701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on (571)270-5389. 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.
/G.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/TIMOTHY PADOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights