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
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment received 10/21/2025.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 6 and 8-10 are amended, claims 1, 5-7, and 11 are canceled, and claims 12-15 are added as new claims, however claims 12-15 are withdrawn from consideration because claims 12-15 are not directed to the originally elected invention, as discussed below.
Claims 6 and 8-10 are currently pending.
Restriction – Election by Original Presentation
Newly submitted claims 12-15 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Invention I (claims 6 and 8-10) and Invention II (claims 12-15) are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instance case, Invention I has separate utility such as for controlling processing of manufactured product batches. Invention II has separate utility such as for automated warehousing of product batches. See MPEP § 806.05(d). In addition, restriction is proper because the inventions are independent and distinct (as noted above) and there would be a serious search/examination burden if restriction were not required because the inventions would require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). In the instant case, examination of each of the inventions may necessitate searching different subclasses and/or employing different search queries based on a number of distinct features recited in each invention. For example, Invention I includes at least the following distinct features: a control system for a product processing apparatus; batch to be processed by the product processing apparatus; controls operation of the product processing apparatus; control signal which causes the product processing apparatus to process the product; signal generated by the second processor to the product processing apparatus. Invention II includes at least the following distinct features: a sorter, a supply unit on which products supplied from an automated warehouse, a carrier, a motor, and a chute to which the products placed on the carrier are sent at positions determined depending on category information. Accordingly, the inventions are independent and distinct.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 30 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
The amendment to par. [0024] of the Specification is entered.
The 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claims 2-3 and 7 is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment, but is maintained for claim 8 because neither the amendment nor the arguments cure the deficiency.
Response to Arguments
Response to §112(b) arguments: Applicant suggests that “Applicant has amended the claim to ensure compliance with 35 USC §112(b) (Remarks at pg. 10). The Examiner notes that, while applicant’s cancelation of claims 2, 3, and 7 obviates the §112(b) rejection of these claims, applicant has not amended claim 8 to resolve the §112(b) issue in claim 8 noted in the previous office action. Accordingly, the §112(b) rejection of claim 8 is maintained.
Response to §101 arguments: Applicant's arguments (Remarks at pgs. 11-18) with respect to the §101 rejection of claims 1-11 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s suggestion that the “claims do not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong 1 (Remarks at pg. 11), the Examiner directs applicant’s attention to the Step 2A Prong One analysis of the §101 rejection set forth in the previous office action and updated in the instant office action in response to the amendment, which provides step-by-step analysis explaining why certain limitations have been determined to set forth or describe activity falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings. Applicant has not effectively rebutted these findings, such as by specifically pointing out supposed errors in these findings or explaining why any of the steps are not reasonably considered as fundamental economic practice and/or commercial interaction activity or providing reasons why these activities could not be practically performed in the human, such as by using human observation, evaluation, opinion, or judgment.
In response to applicant’s reliance on alleged “specific hardware and software components” such as “interfaces and processors” (Remarks at pg. 13), the Examiner first notes that these are additional elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, whereas Step 2A Prong One is focused on the limitations describing the abstract idea itself. Thus, the presence of additional elements is irrelevant to the analysis and findings under Step 2A Prong One. Moreover, the alleged “specific hardware and software components” dot appear to be specific at all, but are recited generically so as to fall under the scope of generic computing elements, as supported by the Specification (See, e.g., Spec. at par. [0047]). Furthermore, the argument relying on alleged “specific…components” lacks merit because the specificity of one or more claim elements is not dispositive on subject matter eligibility under §101. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec).
Under Step 2A Prong Two, applicant argues that “These steps are not generic or abstract,” referring to the limitations directed to “estimat[ing] the number of the product of each batch to be processed by the product processing apparatus based on the past processed data acquired by the first interface, divid[ing] a period of processing the product of each batch into a plurality of processing periods depending on the estimated number of each batch, and creat[ing] a product processing plan in which a plurality of divided processing periods are allocated so that an end time at which all processing periods for each batch end matches a shipment time” (Remarks at pg. 16). However, these activities fall under the scope of the abstract idea itself and are therefore irrelevant to the Step 2A Prong Two analysis. Therefore, Applicant’s apparent reliance on alleged unconventional steps falling under the abstract idea itself is not persuasive.
Lastly, under Step 2B, applicant argues that “The combination of these elements reflects an inventive concept that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field” (Remarks at pg. 18).
However, applicant’s argument lacks merit because there is simply no requirement to show that every limitation or the combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to support a §101 rejection. The Federal Circuit’s BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons Inc. decision (Aug. 15, 2018) plainly addressed this very argument, emphasizing that:
PNG
media_image1.png
311
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
238
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Applicant’s suggestion that the entire claimed invention must be shown to be well-understood, routine and conventional to support the conclusion of §101-ineligibility is not persuasive.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments concerning the §101 rejection are not persuasive.
Response to §103 arguments: Applicant's arguments (Remarks at pgs. 18-21) with respect to the §103 rejection of claims 1-11 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
As best understood, by the Examiner, applicants argues in substance that Budiman, Beasley, and Jenkins do not teach the limitations of “a first processor configured to estimate the number of the product of each batch to be processed by the product processing apparatus based on the past processed data acquired by the first interface, divide a period of processing the product of each batch into a plurality of processing periods depending on the estimated number of the product of each batch, and create a product processing plan in which a plurality of divided processing periods are allocated so that an end time at which all processing periods for each batch end matches a shipment time,” as recited in amended claim 6 (Remarks at pg. 18, last paragraph and continued on pg. 19). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, the Examiner notes that, although Beasley does not teach the disputed limitation, the combination of Budiman and Jenkins teaches these limitations. In particular, Budiman teaches a first processor (par. 39: single processing system or distributed among multiple processing systems) configured to estimate the number of the product of each batch to be processed by the product processing apparatus based on the past processed data acquired by the first interface, divide a period of processing the product of each batch into a plurality of processing periods depending on the estimated number of the product of each batch, and create a product processing plan in which a plurality of divided processing periods are allocated (pars. 29, 39, 56, 65, 69, 87, and 250: e.g., at least one constraint relates the number of batches of each packaged product to product batch size does by making the minimum total manufactured quantity of a packaged product (i.e., number of batches multiplied by batch size) correspond to the expected demand for the product [i.e., These are estimated numbers]; constraint relates the size of each batch of packaged products to the quantity of safety stock required does by making the level of safety stock for each size of packaged product correspond to the quantity that can fulfill customer demand over a specified length of time; computer program further comprises code that calls upon an optimization solver which is integral to, or interfaces with, the computer program to solve the math models; time horizon specifies the time period of plant operations [i.e., a period of processing] to be optimized. In another embodiment, the time horizon of interest is divided into two or more time intervals [plurality of processing periods are allocated]; constraints limiting the availability and capacity of the storage tanks specify one or more of … (ii) minimum time periods for setting up different storage tanks for receiving a batch of blended bulk product; (iii) minimum time periods for pumping a batch of blended bulk product into a storage tank; (iv) minimum time periods for conducting quality assurance testing on a blended bulk product; (v) minimum time periods for setting up the filling equipment to manufacture a batch of packaged product; and (vi) minimum time periods for pumping blended bulk product out of different storage tanks; data relating to historical demand for each packaged product specifies one or more of the arrival time of customer demand events and, for each demand event, the identity and quantity of the products in the demand event; the method utilizes all the data described in this paragraph; cause a computer to identify an optimal or near optimal operating plan [i.e., processing plan] to meet a performance metric for one or more bulk product blending and packaging plant(s)).
Although Beasley and Budiman do not teach allocated so that an end time at which all processing periods for each batch end matches a shipment time, Jenkins teaches allocated so that an end time at which all processing periods for each batch end matches a shipment time (pars. 58, 125, and 331: system 100 then recommends a new group of planned orders for release, to be exported to the external execution system in the next cycle of batch processing; If the shelf life at the destination is the same, the inventory that is shipped must be produced on or after Apr. 4, 2000, in order for it to be fresh enough to meet the destination requirement. Since it must ship on Apr. 5, 2000, planning component 210 schedules production to meet this requirement based on the scheduled ship date; run load leveler 410 in batch--immediately after Plan, for example. In this way, the production component 400 can recommend solutions that better avoid imbalanced inventory levels).
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation of “immediately before …,” however this expression is a relative term that renders the claim scope as indefinite. The scope of the term “immediately” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard, basis, or guideline for ascertaining what falls within the scope of “immediately” and what does not (i.e., a basis for determining what duration of time is considered immediate and what amount of time is not considered immediate), and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b). 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 6 and 8-10 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.
Claims 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidance set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.03), it is first noted that the claimed system (claims 6 and 8-10) are directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine). Accordingly, claims 6 and 8-10 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations that set forth activities reasonably considered as a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial interaction activity such as marketing/sales activity or business relations and steps that, but for the generic computer implementation, may be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). The limitations reciting the abstract idea as set forth in independent claims 1 and 6 are identified in bold text below, whereas the additional elements are presented in plain text and are separately evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B:
control system comprising a control device and a product-processing planning device; wherein the product-processing planning device comprises:
a first interface configured to acquire past processed data including a number of a product of each batch processed in past by the product processing apparatus, which processes the product categorized into a plurality of batches (This limitation describes activity for acquiring past product data [e.g., production volume/run/batch/lot], which is reasonably considered as a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial interaction activity such as marketing/sales activity or business relations, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation through the first interface, could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion and/or with the aid of pen and paper. In addition, the “acquire” step may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution activity has also 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));
a processor configured to estimate the number of the product of each batch to be processed by the product processing apparatus based on the past processed data acquired by the first interface, divide a period of processing the product of each batch into a plurality of processing periods depending on the estimated number of each batch, and create a product processing plan in which a plurality of divided processing periods are allocated so that an end time at which all processing periods for each batch end matches a shipment time (This limitation describes activity for estimating a number of products in a product batch [e.g., production volume/run], dividing a period [e.g., hours, cycle times, work shifts, days, months] and creating a product processing plan [e.g., scheduling production runs], which is reasonably considered as a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial interaction activity such as marketing/sales activity or business relations, and furthermore this activity, but for the generic computer implementation by a first processor, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion and/or with the aid of pen and paper to estimate the number and create a product processing plan); and
a second interface configured to output the product processing plan created by the processor to a control device of the product processing apparatus (This step is not part of the abstract idea, but may be considered insignificant extra-solution output activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution activity has also 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)),
a third interface configured to acquire the product processing plan created by the product-processing planning device (This step describes activity for acquiring the product processing plan [e.g., scheduling production runs], which is reasonably considered as a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial interaction activity such as marketing/sales activity or business relations, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation through the control device and third interface, could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion and/or with the aid of pen and paper. In addition, the “acquire” step may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution data gathering activity has also 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)),
a second processor configured to set a processing period and the batch serving as a processing target in accordance with the product processing plan acquired by the third interface and generate a control signal which causes the product processing apparatus to process the product of the batch serving as the processing target in the set processing period (This step describes activity for setting a processing period and processing a batch [e.g., carrying out a scheduling production run], which is reasonably considered as a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial interaction activity such as marketing/sales activity or business relations), and
a fourth interface configured to output the control signal generated by the second processor to the product processing apparatus (This step is not part of the abstract idea, but may be considered insignificant extra-solution output activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution activity has also 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)).
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 6 recites the additional elements of a control system comprising a control device and a product-processing planning device, a first/second/third/fourth interface, a processor, a first/second processor, a control device, a second interface configured to output the product processing plan created by the processor to a control device of the product processing apparatus, a fourth interface configured to output the control signal generated by the second processor to the product processing apparatus. 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). The second interface configured to output the product processing plan created by the processor to a control device of the product processing apparatus and fourth interface configured to output the control signal generated by the second processor to the product processing apparatus amount to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See 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.
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.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claim 6 recites the additional elements of a control system comprising a control device and a product-processing planning device, a first/second/third/fourth interface, a processor, a first/second processor, a control device, a second interface configured to output the product processing plan created by the processor to a control device of the product processing apparatus, a fourth interface configured to output the control signal generated by the second processor to the product processing apparatus. These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions/software to perform the abstract idea, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment), 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 (generic computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 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).
The second interface configured to output the product processing plan created by the processor to a control device of the product processing apparatus and fourth interface configured to output the control signal generated by the second processor to the product processing apparatus amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the claims. 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. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 8-10 recite the same abstract idea(s) as recited in the independent claims, and have been determined to recite further details/steps falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings discussed above along with the same or substantially same additional elements that amount to generic computing elements (e.g., processor, first interface, second interface, third interface) that serve the purpose of tying the invention to a particular technological environment which, as discussed above, are therefore insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent 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 a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Beasley et al. (US Patent No. 4,827,423, hereinafter “Beasley”) in view of Budiman et al. (US 2011/0130857, hereinafter “Budiman”) in view of Jenkins et al. (US 2002/0188499, hereinafter “Jenkins”).
Claim 6: Beasley teaches a control system for a product processing apparatus, the control system comprising a control device and a product-processing planning device (col. 2 lines 7-60; col. 10 lines 26-39; and col. 26 lines 50-60: multilevel computerized control system; scheduling system determines the quantities of product to be made to meet corporate needs and the materials requirement planning system 202 ensures that there are sufficient people, machines and materials available to meet the production schedule); wherein the product-processing planning device comprises:
a first interface configured to acquire past processed data including a number of a product of each batch processed in past by the product processing apparatus, which processes the product categorized into a plurality of batches (col. 39 lines 30-32: batch/run history data as collected from the Level I system and supplied to the PPMS Batch/Run History sub-function; See also, col. 47 lines 30-37: Batch/Run history data is collected at Level III of PPMS. The Run/Batch history is data accumulated for each processing run of Group Blended Strips, Final Blended Strips and Cut Filler. These reports contain indications of the amount of the product produced, the amount of each component consumed to produce the product),
a second interface configured to output the product processing plan generated by the first processor to the control device which controls operation of the product processing apparatus (Abstract; col. 2 lines 37-43; and col. 10 line 14 – col. 11 line 50; and Fig. 3: e.g., FMS duplicates the majority of the database in the level IV system and also generates an additional file which contains data organized in a manner which can readily interface with the plant scheduling system. This additional file, known as the product definition file, contains records assessable according to scheduable products; scheduling data and data relating to process, product, and material specifications as well as bills of material are generated in an upper level computer system and refined and down loaded as needed to lower level computers controlling the shop floor processes; scheduling data and data relating to process, product, and material specifications as well as bills of material are generated in an upper level computer system and refined and down loaded as needed to lower level computers controlling the shop floor processes; plant scheduling system operates by accessing the records of the products to be manufactured and passing this information down to the management system(s) involved in making that item); and the control device comprises
a third interface configured to acquire the product processing plan created by the product-processing planning device (col. 2 lines 37-50; col. 52 lines 37-46; col. 62 lines 56-64: second level computer system is connected to receive scheduling information indicative of scheduled process controls to be carried out by the first level computer system to produce scheduled products, is programmed to provide selected ones of the control parameters necessary to carry out the scheduled process controls to the first level computer system as the contrl parameters for processes being carried out and to provide selected records from the bill of materials file indicating materials necessary for producing the scheduled products as the materials for products being produced, and is programmed to receive indications of the values of the sensor signals; Level II PPMS is notified that a new/revised schedule is to be incorporated via the Network Sender/ Receiver communications software. A message is placed into the network indicating which work center is to receive the schedule. The new schedule data is then copied down from Level III to Level II),
a second processor configured to set a processing period and the batch serving as a processing target in accordance with the product processing plan acquired by the third interface and generate a control signal which causes the product processing apparatus to process the product of the batch serving as the processing target in the set processing period (Abstract; col. 2 lines 37-49; col. 12 lines 13-23; col. 32 lines 36-39: e.g., computers on the upper levels are capable of communication with the computers on the lower levels and computers on the same level are capable of communication with each other as needed to pass information back and forth; second level computer system is connected to receive scheduling information indicative of scheduled process controls to be carried out by the first level computer system to produce scheduled products, is programmed to provide selected ones of the control parameters necessary to carry out the scheduled process controls to the first level computer system as the contrl parameters for processes being carried out and to provide selected records from the bill of materials file indicating materials necessary for producing the scheduled products as the materials for products being produced, and is programmed to receive indications of the values of the sensor signals; Management system 230 functions in a manner somewhat similar to the operation of the host computers in that it passes specification data to the 36 level I CATCs as needed to control the present run and the next subsequent run. In this context, the term "run" refers to the production of a scheduled product during a scheduled time period. The CATCs pass the run information on to the computer controls on the machines themselves (indicated generally by 240) which operate on the 0 level; The product to be made, the facilities to be scheduled and the Manufacturing Standards to use are loaded into the processing computers and displayed to the machine operators), and
a fourth interface configured to output the control signal generated by the second processor to the product processing apparatus (Abstract; col. 2 lines 23-24 and 46-52; and col. 12 lines 14-23: e.g., computers on the upper levels are capable of communication with the computers on the lower levels and computers on the same level are capable of communication with each other as needed to pass information back and forth; control a single machine or a single group of machines for producing a product; computer integrated manufacturing system in which scheduling information is combined with the bill of material and process control data to provide precise control data for manufacturing stations on the shop floor; Management system 230 functions in a manner somewhat similar to the operation of the host computers in that it passes specification data to the 36 level I CATCs as needed to control the present run and the next subsequent run. In this context, the term "run" refers to the production of a scheduled product during a scheduled time period. The CATCs pass the run information on to the computer controls on the machines themselves (indicated generally by 240) which operate on the 0 level).
Beasley does not explicitly teach:
a first processor configured to estimate the number of the product of each batch to be processed by the product processing apparatus based on the past processed data acquired by the first interface, divide a period of processing the product of each batch into a plurality of processing periods depending on the estimated number of the product of each batch, and create a product processing plan in which a plurality of divided processing periods are allocated so that an end time at which all processing periods for each batch end matches a shipment time.
Budiman teaches:
a first processor configured to estimate the number of the product of each batch to be processed by the product processing apparatus based on the past processed data acquired by the first interface, divide a period of processing the product of each batch into a plurality of processing periods depending on the estimated number of the product of each batch, and create a product processing plan in which a plurality of divided processing periods are allocated (pars. 29, 39, 56, 65, 69, 87, and 250: e.g., single processing system or distributed among multiple processing systems; constraint relates the number of batches of each packaged product to product batch size does by making the minimum total manufactured quantity of a packaged product (i.e., number of batches multiplied by batch size) correspond to the expected demand for the product [i.e., These are estimated numbers]; constraint relates the size of each batch of packaged products to the quantity of safety stock required does by making the level of safety stock for each size of packaged product correspond to the quantity that can fulfill customer demand over a specified length of time; optimization solver which is integral to, or interfaces with, the computer program to solve the math models; time horizon specifies the time period of plant operations [i.e., a period of processing] to be optimized. In another embodiment, the time horizon of interest is divided into two or more time intervals [plurality of processing periods are allocated]; constraints…specify one or more of … (ii) minimum time periods for setting up different storage tanks for receiving a batch of blended bulk product; (iii) minimum time periods for pumping a batch of blended bulk product into a storage tank; (iv) minimum time periods for conducting quality assurance testing on a blended bulk product; (v) minimum time periods for setting up the filling equipment to manufacture a batch of packaged product; and (vi) minimum time periods for pumping blended bulk product out of different storage tanks; data relating to historical demand for each packaged product specifies one or more of the arrival time of customer demand events and, for each demand event, the identity and quantity of the products in the demand event; the method utilizes all the data described in this paragraph; cause a computer to identify an optimal or near optimal operating plan [i.e., processing plan] to meet a performance metric for one or more bulk product blending and packaging plant(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beasley with Budiman because the references are analogous since they are each directed to features for managing/scheduling batch production in a manufacturing environment, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of product-processing planning for product batches, and because modifying Beasley to incorporate Budiman’s features for estimating batch sizes based on past processed data and dividing a product processing period of batches in to a plurality of periods based thereon, as claimed, would serve the motivation to optimize production batch size to meet demand requirements at the lowest manufacturing cost (Budiman at par. 9) and to ensure that customer demand is fulfilled in accordance with required lead times (Budiman at par. 65); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Beasley and Budiman do not explicitly teach allocated so that an end time at which all processing periods for each batch end matches a shipment time.
Jenkins teaches allocated so that an end time at which all processing periods for each batch end matches a shipment time (pars. 58, 125, and 331: system 100 then recommends a new group of planned orders for release, to be exported to the external execution system in the next cycle of batch processing; If the shelf life at the destination is the same, the inventory that is shipped must be produced on or after Apr. 4, 2000, in order for it to be fresh enough to meet the destination requirement. Since it must ship on Apr. 5, 2000, planning component 210 schedules production to meet this requirement based on the scheduled ship date; run load leveler 410 in batch--immediately after Plan, for example. In this way, the production component 400 can recommend solutions that better avoid imbalanced inventory levels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beasley/Budiman with Jenkins because the references are analogous since they are each directed to features for managing/scheduling batch based production management, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of product-processing planning for product batches, and because modifying Beasley/Budiman to include a product processing plan with periods allocated so that an end time at which all processing periods for each batch end matches a shipment time, as taught by Jenkins, would serve Beasley’s motivation to implement just-in-time concepts (Beasley at col. 2 lines 2-5), and would help ensure that customer demand is fulfilled in accordance with lead times (Budiman at par. 65); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 8: Beasley does not teach the limitation of claim 8.
Jenkins teaches wherein the processor creates the product processing plan allocating the processing period so that the number of the product to be processed in the processing period allocated immediately before the shipment time is equal to or lower than a maximum number of the product processable by the product processing apparatus in a last processing period of each batch, corresponding to the end time which matches the shipment time of each batch (pars. 38, 58, 125, and 331: planning component 200 allows the user to specify a maximum number of planned arrivals or planned orders that the planning component 210 will create for a single SKU; inventory that is shipped must be produced on or after Apr. 4, 2000, in order for it to be fresh enough to meet the destination requirement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include, in the combination of Beasley/Budiman/Jenkins, a feature for allocating a processing period so that a number of product to be processed in the processing period allocated immediately before the shipment time is equal to or lower than a maximum number of the product processable by the product processing apparatus in the processing period, as taught by Jenkins, in order to serve Beasley’s motivation to implement just-in-time concepts (Beasley at col. 2 lines 2-5) while ensuring that customers receive appropriate supply allocations (Jenkins at par. 9) and ensuring that customer demand is fulfilled in accordance with lead times (Budiman at par. 65); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9: Beasley does not teach the limitation of claim 9.
Jenkins teaches wherein the first processor of the product-planning device creates the product processing plan allocating the processing period so that the number of the product to be processed in the processing period is equal to or lower than the maximum number of the product processable by the product processing a