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 the Application
2. Claim 1-12 have been amended and claim 13-15 are added. Claim 1-15 are in pending status.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 05/08/2023.
Response to Arguments
3. The specification objection in regard to the title and typographical error have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the specification filed on 7/23/25.
4. The claim 3 objection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claim filed on 7/23/25.
5. The 35 U.S.C 101 abstract idea rejection is maintained.
Examiner does not agree with the applicant’s argument filed on 7/23/25, as the argument is not persuasive. The amended claim limitation includes the processor and memory storing computer executable instruction which is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. In regard to that the amended claim still recite the abstract idea and rejected under the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more as fully discussed below.
8. Regarding claim 1 and 11-12, the claim(s) recite(s) limitations “analyzing a work situation for each product in each of the plurality of processes; and a providing an analysis result from the analyzer, wherein the analyzing determining, on the basis of a first relationship between the first time zone and the second time zone in a period for analysis of a process for analysis, whether or not a factor that decreases work efficiency has occurred in the period for analysis of the process for analysis.” These claim limitations are abstract idea because these limitations can be reasonably performed in human mind. Nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. Human can easily perform the claimed analyze a work situation and provide an analysis result limitation. Thus, claimed limitations can be performed in human mind (Step 2A, Prong One, Yes).
The claim further recite limitation “acquiring data indicating a first time zone in which each product stays in each of the plurality of processes; acquiring data indicating a second time zone in which a worker stays in each of the plurality of processes”. These limitations adds only insignificant extra solution activity akin to outputting the result (See MPEP §2106.05(g), “amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting”).
In the claim, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim does not recite any limitations other than the above mentioned limitations which are already identified as abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two, No).
The limitation of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores a program for causing a computer to execute an analysis method for a manufacturing system including a plurality of processes” of claim 12, and “a processor; and a memory storing computer-executable instructions” of claim 1 is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components like storage memory recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The additional limitation that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activities, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional element as discussed above in step 2A of “acquiring data” to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for receiving data (receiving step) (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (i: 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 (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (Step 2B, No).
As such the accordance to flowchart of the PEG 2019, the claim 1 and 11-12 are not patent eligible.
9. Regarding claims 2-10, and 13-15 these claim recite limitations that are directed to abstract idea because limitations recited by these claims can also be reasonably performed in human mind.
Claims 2-10, and 13-15 only recites limitations that are abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One, Yes) under the mental process. None of the claims 2 -10, and 13-15 recite any limitations that can integrate the claims into a practical applications because all these limitations recite is abstract idea..
For claim 2, and 6-8 the limitation of “store…”, for claim 3-5 the limitation of “providing a graph”, for claim 9-10 the limitation of “providing a histogram”, and limitation “display” of claim 3-8 adds only insignificant extra solution activity akin to outputting the result (See MPEP §2106.05(g), “amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting”) (Step 2A, Prong 2: No).
Also for claims 2-10, 13-15, the additional limitation that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activities, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional element as discussed above in step 2A of “providing a graph” and “displaying” to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for storing, providing and display (outputting step) (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (i: 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 (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (Step 2B, No).
Thus, claims 2-10, and 13-15 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claim 1, 11-12 and their respective dependent claim are allowable once the 35 U.S.C 101 abstract idea rejection, claim objection is overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571)272-2279. 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.
/JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116