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 . The following is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected below.
Response to Amendments
Examiner’s amendments are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 101:
Previous Rejections to Claims 1-9 are withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendment.
Examiner notes an improvement in field production is still a business improvement. The function of the display is not changed in a meaningful way beyond a general link to display technology or beyond generic and routine display functions for displaying information. Because the claimed display functions are broadly claimed and are directed to the basic functions of display technology, the claims do not improve the functioning of the display and do not improve the technical field of visualization.
With respect to 103:
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of reevaluation of Bueno (2022/0088890). With respect to "...identify a work type of each time range comprised in the second time period as being either a normal work or a non- normal work based on a relationship between a staying time of the workpiece in the first time period and an engagement time of the worker worked on the workpiece in the second time period...” Examiner notes Bueno’s bringing pipe ends together (ie. manufacturing) is interpreted as task when manufacturing is being performed and the “normal” work (Figure 3 (114), Figure 5A (232), Figure 6 (308). The non-normal work in the second time period when the worker stays in a work area is interpreted as the steps other than the merging of the pipe ends. By being in a same workflow each of the time periods are interpreted as mutually dependent and thus in a relationship (Figure 1 (12, 14), Figure 2-3, 5A-B, 6, 0040(bottom), 0055)
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 1-8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-8, 10-11 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Based on a facial reading of the claim elements,
Claims 1-8, 10-11 fall within a statutory class of process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Under step 2A of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 10, and 11 include limitations reciting functionality for:
Acquiring data indicating a first time period during which a workpiece...
Acquiring data indicating a second time period during which a worker...
Acquiring a work cycle of an entirety of the plurality of work processes...
Identifying a work type of each time range...
Calculate a sum total of time ranges...
Display a horizontal axis indicates passage of time...
These limitations describe an abstract idea reasonably categorized as Certain methods of organizing human activity – because the steps are describing a workflow that manages workers (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes because each of the steps can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Similarly, Claims 2-8 further describe descriptive data, mental processes, and organizing human activities and thus further narrows the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 10, and 11 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the framework. These additional elements include a device, display, processor. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, Examiner submits that these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because, in view of Applicant’s specification, these elements are generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The “display, on a display device, a horizontal axis...” fails to change the function of the display in a meaningful way that goes beyond a general link to display technology or beyond generic and routine display functions for displaying information. Because the claimed display functions are broadly claimed and are directed to the basic functions of display technology, the claims do not improve the functioning of the display and do not improve the technical field of visualization.
As a result, claim 1, 10, and 11 do not include additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-8 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to Claims 1, 10-11. As a result, claims 2-8 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1, 10, and 11 include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the framework. These additional elements include a device, display, processor. Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because, in view of Applicant’s specification, these elements are generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or recite generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
As stated above the display functions are broadly claimed and are directed to the basic functions of display technology and do not improve the functioning of the display, nor improve the technical field of visualization.
As a result, claims 1, 10, and 11 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-8 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to Claims 1, 10, and 11.
As a result, Claims 1-11 do not include additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong.
Accordingly, Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueno (2022/0088890) in view of Meerkov (202/00126167) in view of Jahagirdar (2017/0147960)
Regarding Claim 1, Bueno discloses: A work management device, comprising:
a display, and a processor configured to: (0038-0039 – computer programs stored in non-volatile memory within the carriage controllers; carriage display)
acquire data indicating a first time period during which a workpiece as a work object in each of a plurality of work processes stays in a state in which substantial work in the work process is possible; (Figure 3 (114), Figure 5A (232), Figure 6 (308)- the bringing the pine ends together is interpreted as a time that manufacturing is being done)
acquire data indicating a second time period during which a worker stays in a worker area corresponding to each of the plurality of work processes; (Figure 1 (12, 14), Figure 2-3, 5A-B, 6, 0040(bottom), 0055 – for manual and semi-automatic - either the set-up sequence time period (which can be done manually), or manual tasks during the fusion sequence (stays in work area); in “automatic” mode, a worker entering commands and settings to a controller (interpreted as “stays in work area”))
acquire a work cycle of an entirety of the plurality of work processes; (Figure 3, 5A-B, 6 – any of the full workflow sequences in pipe fusion)
identify a work type of each time range comprised in the second time period as being either a normal work or a non-normal work based on a relationship between a staying time of the workpiece in the first time period and an engagement time of the worker worked on the workpiece in the second time period (Figure 1 (12, 14), Figure 2-3, 5A-B, 6, 0040(bottom), 0055- all second time period work is non-normal because it is not a manufacturing step (ie. brining pipe ends together); however by being in the same workflow both time periods are interpreted as having a relationship)
Bueno does not explicitly state: However Meerkov, in analogous art discloses: calculate with respect to at least one of the work processes, a sum total of time ranges corresponding to at least one of the work type comprised in one of the work cycle. (Figure 4A “Performance Analysis”- calculating cycle time for each machine, 0043, - “The cycle time is an amount of time needed to process a part by a machine”; Based on 0041(bottom) – each machine having multiple operations)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply Meerkov’s summing of time ranges to Bueno’s work types (ie. individual workflow steps), since 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.
Bueno does not explicitly state: Jahagirdar, directed to “project and task management for a business to plan and manage projects or tasks” (0002), discloses: display, on the display, a horizontal axis indicates passage of time, and the first time period and the second time period in the work process that is predetermined are displayed in different display formats. (Figure 12C- displaying two different types of work time periods (expected completion, actual completion) in different formats horizontally) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply Jahargirdar’s display to Bueno’s in view of Meerkov’s first and second time periods, since 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Bueno discloses: The work management device according to claim 1, wherein the normal work is necessary for manufacturing of the workpiece and the non-normal work is not necessary for manufacturing of the workpiece, each of a plurality of work processes is classified according to one of a plurality of process classifications, and the relationship between the staying time of the workpiece in the first time period and the engagement time of the worker worked on the workpiece in the second time period for identifying the work type is different for each process classification of the plurality of process classifications. (Figure 1 , Figure 2-3, 5A-B, 6, 0055 – the merging pipe ends together is necessary for manufacturing while the other steps are interpreted as not manufacturing; each workflow step is categorized as manual, automatic, or semi-automatic based on the workflow type and/or specific manual step (process classification); each process classification (manual, automatic, or semi-automatic) has a unique workflow and set of tasks, and thus each has different relationships between the first time period and second time period)
Regarding Claim 3, Bueno discloses: . The work management device according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of process classification comprises an automated process normally implemented only by work performed by an automated device without requiring the worker, a semi-automated process implemented by work of a semi-automated device and requiring preparation and post-processing performed by the worker, and a manual process performed by the worker. (Figure 6, 0055– automatic fusion; Figure 5A-B, 0049-0054 – semi-automatic fusion; the checking (yes/no) and confirming steps serve as preparation and post-processing; Figure 3, 0041-0043-manual fusion)
Regarding Claim 4, Bueno discloses: The work management device according to claim 3, wherein, in response to the work process being associated with the automated process, the processor is configured to identify the work type of each time range comprised in the second time period as non-normal work. (Figure 6 (308) – all automated steps other than the brining pipe ends together is not a manufacturing /building (non-normal))
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected based on the same citations and rationale as applied to Claim 1.
Claim 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueno (2022/0088890) in view of Meerkov (202/00126167) in view of Jahagirdar (2017/0147960) in view of Hertling (20040111430)
Regarding Claim 5, Bueno discloses: The work management device according to claim 3, wherein, in response to the work process being associated with the semi-automated process, the processor is configured to identify the work type of each time range comprised in the second time period that does not overlap the first time period as non-normal work corresponding to the preparation and the post-processing, (Figure 5A-B, 0049-0054 –the checking and confirming steps in semi-automatic fusion serve as preparation and post-processing steps and are part of the semi-automatic workflow and not the manufacturing step) Bueno does not explicitly state that preparation and post-processing work are normal work (ie. manufacturing steps) steps. Hertling discloses this preparation and post-processing also being manufacturing steps (ie. normal work). (Figure 2, 0037- Referring again to the node tree 10 of FIG. 2, many output resources of the individual nodes serve as input resources for other nodes. These other nodes may not be able to begin executing until some or all input resources are complete and available, which means that the nodes may need to execute according to a set of rules such that some tasks and sub-tasks in the job request are executed in a well-defined, but not necessarily pre-defined sequence. For example, a process for making plates will produce press plates as an output resource that is required by a printing process. A process for printing a brochure may require use of the plates. However, the brochures may be printed by sending brochure data to a networked printer (i.e., a service 80), which then produces the initial output resource of printed pages for the brochure)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to Bueno’s in view of Meerkov’s in view of Jahagirdar’s pre and post processing steps to include Hertling’s output (ie. normal work), since 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.
Bueno discloses: identifies the work type of each time range comprised in the second time period that does not overlap the first time period as non-normal work
(Figure 5A (232) – all steps other than the brining pipe ends together is not a manufacturing step (non-normal)). Bueno does not explicitly state the time range of the first time period and time range of the second time period overlap. Hertling discloses this limitation [0044] ... More complex job requests 32, such as the job request illustrated in FIG. 2 (i.e., print a brochure) may have many branches. Furthermore, some branches may be so interrelated that they can only be completed in a specific sequence, while other branches can be completed in a parallel or an overlapping fashion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bueno’s in view of Meerkov’s in view of Jahagirdar’s time ranges of the first and second time periods to include Hertling’s overlap, since 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.
Regarding Claim 6, Bueno discloses: The work management device according to claim 3, wherein, in response to the work process being associated with the manual process, the processor is configured to identify the work type of each time range comprised in the second time period that does not overlap the first time period as non-normal work. (Figure 3(114) – all manual steps other than the brining pipe ends together is not a manufacturing step (non-normal)). Bueno does not explicitly state: the processor is configured to identify the work type of each time range comprised in the second time period that overlaps the first time period as normal work. Hertling discloses this limitation (0055 - The service 80.sub.2 and the client 31.sub.2 may then access the workflow definition file 91.sub.i at the same time as the service 80.sub.1 accesses the workflow definition file 91.sub.i. This simultaneous access allows different tasks and sub-tasks to be completed in parallel. In the example illustrated in FIG. 2, the service 80.sub.1 may complete some or all the tasks for the inside pages, and the service 80.sub.2 may complete the tasks for the cover.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Hertling’s overlapping of manufacturing tasks to Bueno’s in view of Meerkov’s in view of Jahagirdar’s time ranges of the first and second time periods, since 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.
Regarding Claim 7, Bueno discloses: The work management device according to claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to, Bueno does not explicitly state: Jahagirdar discloses: ouptut a statistical result based on a history of a sum total of time ranges corresponding to the work type identified as the normal work in the work process that is predetermined. (Figure 12C – expected completion over historical time periods for production work) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply Jahagirdar’s statistical result to Bueno’s in view of Meerkov’s in view of Hertling’s time ranges of normal work, since 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.
Regarding Claim 8, Bueno discloses: The work management device according to claim 6, further comprising: Bueno does not explicitly state: Jahagirdar discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to: output a statistical result based on a history of a sum total of time ranges corresponding to the work type identified as the normal work in the work process that is predetermined. (Figure 12C – expected completion over historical time periods for production work) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply Jahagirdar’s statistical result to Bueno’s in view of Meerkov’s in view of Hertling’s time ranges of normal work, since 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. [AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
186
1306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT ROSS whose telephone number is (571) 270-1555. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM E.S.T..
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, Rutao Wu, can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Scott Ross/
Examiner - Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623