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 the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 5/27/2025. Claims 1, 4-5, and 8 are pending in this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4-5, and 8 are acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 2-3 and 6-7 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks page 9, Applicant argues first, the cited references fail to teach “repeating the simulation until a simulation result satisfying a predetermined convergence condition is obtained, the predetermined convergence condition being obtained when a simulated work time for the batch work is less than a preset standard working time for the batch work unit.” While the Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While there may be some distinction between the cited prior and Applicant’s invention, currently the prior art teaches Applicant’s broadly recited claim limitation. Specifically here Niina teaches in paragraphs 0104-0106 repeating the simulation multiple times until a predetermined period of time, and adjusting factors and repeating the simulation again (see paragraph 0101, 0123-0124). So here the convergence condition is when the system stops simulating after a “predetermined period of time” to then readjust and repeat again. This time is less than the “a preset standard working time for the batch work until” as there are multiple different simulations run after thresholds and model adjustments. There is no requirement that the simulation stop running or no longer runs at all in the claims.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks pages 9-10, Applicant argues second the references fail to disclose as amended “setting a threshold to detect an occurrence of an abnormality in the one or more works related to the provision of the service in the real space for each individual work unit and the batch work unit based on the simulation result in which the convergent condition is satisfied.” (emphasis added in the original). Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here the Examiner discussed in 3 above how the Examiner interpreted “convergent condition” to be taught by Niina. Further Niina teaches adjusting threshold values based on abnormalities (see paragraphs 0104-0106, 0119-0121). Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks page 10, Applicant argues third the references fail to disclose “determining that an abnormality occurs in the individual work unit when the real time difference in the batch work unit is greater than the threshold set for the batch work unit and the real time difference in the individual work unit is greater than there threshold set for the individual work unit.” Applicant further argues the previous rejection and that it is not teach “determining an abnormality in the individual work unit based on the conditions recited in claim 1.” The Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments. It is noted that Applicant has amended the claims differently than presented previously. It is noted that a different interpretation of the scope of Applicant’s claims was taken accordingly.
Specifically here Applicant defines individual work unit and batch work unit as follows “a service being performed in a real space by the one or more works, wherein each work among the one or more works corresponding to an individual work unit, and a plurality of works among the one or more works corresponds to a batch work unit.” Here Examiner interprets works to be “tasks”, an individual work unit to be like a device in Ninna (see paragraphs 0093), and a “batch unit” to be multiple tasks that can happen at either the same device or multiple devices (it is noted that Applicant’s claims are broad enough to cover both interpretations as amended). Abnormalities are determined when a threshold is exceeded for an individual calculation for a device (see paragraph 0104, “duration of time”) and when a threshold is exceeded for a batch like a number of times or an accumulations of time (see paragraphs 0105-0106). It is noted an abnormality could be interpreted when one of these above thresholds is exceeded however abnormalities are determined when both are exceeded as well therefore reading on Applicant’s claims as amended.
On Remarks pages 10-11, Applicant argues fourth “based on determining that an abnormality occurs, generating a distribution of resources for the one or more works being provided in the real space, the distribution of resources satisfying the predetermined convergence condition.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. This is a very broad results based claim. While there may be some difference between Applicant’s invention and the cited prior art, the Examiner interprets Niina to read on the claim as amended. Specifically Niina teaches updating thresholds and running on the simulation again according to a predetermined time period (see paragraphs 0101, 0104-0106, 0120, 0123). This reads on the broad recitation of generating a distribution of resources as the predetermined convergence condition is satisfied, as the simulation is run again according to the predetermined time period.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks page 12, Applicant argues that the Examiner has not explain how any of the claim events recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The Examiner strongly disagrees. The Examiner has specifically provided reasoning why each claim recites human activities on pages 2-9 of the Non-Final Office action.
On Remarks pages 12-13, Applicant argues USPTO Example 38. Here Applicant argues that they are substantially similar. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments, USPTO example 38, and Applicant’s claims, however the Examiner does not find them “substantially similar.” While they are both cite the word “simulation or simulating” nothing else in the claims is similar or the same (see Remarks page 12).
USPTO Example 38 was not eligible because it was a simulation (or simulating) rather it was eligible rather instead the results of the 101 analysis were “No. The claim does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The claim does not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims. With respect to mental processes, the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind. Finally, the claim does not recite a certain method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or commercial and legal interactions. The claim is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception.”
The present application which as addressed above is unlike USPTO Example 38 does in fact recite an abstract idea like certain methods of organizing human activities or mental processes as detailed in the 101 rejection below.
Further as detailed on Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas page 1 claims that have different fact patterns like the present application and USPTO example 38 can have different eligibility outcomes (cited herein: ” The following examples should be used in conjunction with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG). The examples below are hypothetical and only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis under the 2019 PEG. These examples should be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth below as other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes. That is, it is not necessary for a claim under examination”).
On Remarks pages 13-14, Applicant argues “a technical problem necessarily rooted in computer technology” with respect to the 101 rejection. Applicant cites paragraphs 0006-0008, 0108-0109, and 0141 for support of this argument. These sections recite determining external factors (see paragraphs 0006-008), where external factors may be for example a rush of orders or robots (see paragraphs 0108-0109), and a threshold is set for a tolerance with external factors (see paragraph 0141). It is noted that none of this is required by the claims(applicant does not recite external factors, robots, rush orders, tolerances, etc.), rendering Applicant’s argument not persuasive. See MPEP 2106.05(a) “During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.”
On Remarks page 14, Applicant thirdly argues with respect to the 101 rejection. That the claims “in addition to accurately detecting the occurrence of an abnormality, the claimed embodiment generates an allocation of resources for the one or more works being performed in the real space in consideration of the detected abnormality” While the Examiner understand applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. This merely recites limitations a human or humans could perform given the very broad recitation in the claims, specifically a human could determine abnormalities based on constraints or threshold and update the simulation to redistribute resources based on abnormalities and updated constraints and provide (or transmit) that information to the simulation or the people running the simulation. The additional elements that the transmitting is done to one or more servers merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the 101 rejection below.
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, 4-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 4 recite a process as the claims recite a method. Claims 5 and 8 recite a machine as the claims recite a device with a processor.
The claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 8 recite(s) the idea of detecting abnormalities based on differences between simulation and real actions thresholds and updating over time based on the results.
The claims recite limitations including observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions that can be performed in the human mind or by human with the aid of pen and paper, according the claims recite a mental process.
Further the claims recite activities a human or human could perform related to business as the claims recite this is business information from a business operator to a business customer, according the claims recite commercial or legal interaction including business relations, according the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity.
Mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) And (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
Examiner notes that the Examiner has underlined and bolded additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Limitations that are part of the abstract are not bolded and underlined.
1. A method to manage a service provided from a business operator to a business customer, the method comprising the steps of:
Storing, in a memory, one or more models, corresponding to a service being performed in a real space by one or more works,
Wherein each work among the one or more works corresponds to an individual work unit, and a plurality of works among the one or more works corresponds to a batch work unit;
Executing with a processor, based on the models stored in the memory, a simulation using a digital space reproduced based on the real space in which the service is provided;
repeating the simulation until a simulation result satisfying a predetermined convergence condition is obtained, the predetermined convergence condition being obtained when a simulated work time for the batch work unit is less than a present standard working time for the batch work;
and setting a threshold to detect an occurrence of an abnormality the in one or more works related to the provision of the service in the real space for each individual work unit and the batch unit based on the simulation result in which the convergent condition is satisfied,
wherein, the step of setting the threshold comprises the steps of:
calculating, for each individual work unit, a simulation time difference indicating a time difference between a preset standard working time and a simulated work time of each individual work unit included in the simulation result satisfying the convergent condition,
setting a threshold corresponding to the simulation time difference for each work unit, wherein a work unit having a larger simulation time difference is given a threshold larger than that of a work unit having a smaller simulation time difference, and
setting a threshold corresponding to the simulation time difference for the batch work unit based on a combination of thresholds set for each individual work unit;
acquiring, in real-time, time-series information for the one or more works being performed in the real space from one or more servers corresponding to the one or more works;
based on the time-series information, calculating an actual work time for each individual work unit and the batch work unit corresponding to the one or more works being performed in real space;
calculating a real time difference indicating a time difference between an actual work time of the batch work unit or individual work unit and the standard working time of the batch work unit or the standard working time of the individual work unit;
determining that abnormality occurs in the individual work unit when the real time difference in the batch work unit is greater than the threshold set for the batch work unit and the real difference in the individual work is greater than the threshold set for the individual work unit;
based on determining that an abnormality occurs, generating a distribution of resources for the one or more works being provided in the real space, the distribution of resources satisfying the predetermined convergence condition; and
transmitting the distribution of resources to the one or more servers corresponding to the one or more works being provided in the real space
4. The method according to the claim 2, wherein the generating the distribution of resources comprises the steps of: when it is determined that the abnormality occurs in the individual work unit or the batch work unit, performing redistribution of resources to be input to the one or more works; repeating the simulation until a new simulation result satisfying the convergent condition is obtained by using the digital space in which the resource reallocation is performed; and resetting the threshold for each work unit based on the new simulation result.
5. A device to manage a service provided from a business operator to a business customer, comprising a processor configured to:
Store, in a memory, one or more models corresponding to a service being performed in a real space by the one or more works,
Wherein each work among the one or more works corresponds to an individual work unit, and a plurality of works among the one or more works corresponds to a batch work unit;
execute processing, based on the models stored in the memory, to simulate using a digital space reproduced based on the real space in which the service is provided;
execute processing to repeat the simulation until a simulation result satisfying a predetermined convergence condition is obtained, the predetermined convergence condition being obtained when a simulated work time for the batch work unit is less than a preset standard work time for the batch work unit;
execute processing to set a threshold for detecting an occurrence of an abnormality the in one or more works related to the provision of the service in the real space for individual each work unit and the batch work unit based on the simulation result in which the convergent condition is satisfied,
wherein, in the processing to set the threshold, the processor is further configured to:
execute processing to calculate, for each individual work unit, a simulation time difference indicating a time difference between a preset standard working time and a simulated work time of each individual work unit included in the simulation result satisfying the convergent condition;
execute processing to set a threshold corresponding to the simulation time difference for each individual work unit,
wherein, in the processing to set the threshold, a work unit having a large simulation time difference is assigned a threshold larger than a work unit having a small simulation time difference, and
execute processing to a set a threshold corresponding to the simulation time difference for the batch work unit based on a combination of the thresholds set for each individual work unit;
execute processing to acquire, in real-time, time-series information for the one or more works being performed in the real space from one or more servers corresponding to the one or more works;
based on the time-series information, execute processing to calculate an actual work time for each individual work unit and the batch work unit corresponding to the one or more works being performed in real space;
execute processing to calculate a real time difference indicating a time difference between an actual work time of the batch work unit or individual work unit and the standard working time of the batch work unit or the standard working time of the individual work unit;
based on determining that an abnormality occurs, execute processing to generate a distribution of resources for the one or more works being provided in the real space, the distribution of resources satisfying the predetermined convergence condition; and
execute processing to transmit the distribution of resources to the one or more servers corresponding to the one or more works being provided in the real space
8. The device according to claim 6, wherein, in the processing to generate the distribution of resources, the processor is further configured to: execute processing to redistribute resources to be input to the one or more works when it is determined that the abnormality has occurred in the individual work unit or the batch work unit; execute processing to repeat the simulation until a new simulation result satisfying the convergent condition is obtained by using the digital space in which the resource reallocation is performed; and execute processing to reset the threshold for each work unit based on the new simulation result.
As per claim 1, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform or human activities specifically a human could perform a simulation of business information to be provided to a customer, could repeat the simulation until a desired time, set a threshold for determining an abnormality based on a comparison or calculation, and calculate and set a threshold according to difference between two pieces of information like a simulation and actual action , where the threshold is larger or smaller based on the work time. Further a human could as amended acquire information, calculate work time and time differences based on the acquired information, determine an abnormality based on differences, determine an update based on the abnormality (e.g. a generate of a distribution of resources) and transmit (Send) this information to another location or user. The additional elements as amended are that the simulation space is “digital”, functions are performed by a “processor” and information is received and sent to “one or more servers” which merely results in “apply it.”
Specifically here the claim invokes computer or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanisms for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” This is the case here as the additional limitations provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the simulation which is equivalent to the words “apply it”
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited that the simulation space is “digital”, functions are performed by a “processor” and information is received and sent to “one or more servers” merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological field of computers.
As per claim 4, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform or human activities specifically a human could determine an abnormality and redistribute information based on the abnormality and repeat a simulation until an event occurs and reset a threshold based on a simulation. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above in the independent claim.
As per claim 5, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform or human activities specifically a human could perform a simulation of business information to be provided to a customer, could repeat the simulation until a desired time, set a threshold for determining an abnormality based on a comparison or calculation, and calculate and set a threshold according to difference between two pieces of information like a simulation and actual action , where the threshold is larger or smaller based on the work time. Further a human could as amended acquire information, calculate work time and time differences based on the acquired information, determine an abnormality based on differences, determine an update based on the abnormality (e.g. a generate of a distribution of resources) and transmit (Send) this information to another location or user.
The additional elements is that the simulation space is “digital”, and that limitations are performed by a device including a processor, and information is received and sent to “one or more servers” merely results in “apply it.”
Specifically here the claim invokes computer or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanisms for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” This is the case here as the additional limitations provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the simulation which is equivalent to the words “apply it”
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed the simulation space is “digital”, and that limitations are performed by a device including a processor, and information is received and sent to “one or more servers” merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological field of computers.
As per claim 8, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform or human activities specifically a human could determine an abnormality and redistribute information and repeat a simulation until an event occurs and reset a threshold based on a simulation. The additional elements that this is done by a processor merely results in “apply it” or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 5.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) And (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above with respect to the practical application step.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 1,4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niina et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2007/0043539) further in view of Stafford et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2010/0228376).
As per claim 1, Niina et al. teaches A method to manage (see abstract, Examiner’s note: abnormality monitoring method).
a service provided from a business operator, the method comprising the steps of: (see paragraphs 0005 and 0093, Examiner’s note: a plant where the plant includes things like field devices like a heat exchanger, a valve, a compressor or a pump).
Storing in a memory, one or more models corresponding to a service being performed in a real space by one or more works, (see paragraphs 0021, 0098, and 0099-0100, Examiner’s note: executed using software (see paragraphs 0021 and 0098). Storing information in storage (see paragraph 0099-0100)).
Wherein each work among the one or more works corresponds to an individual work unit, and a plurality of works among the one or more works corresponds to a batch work unit; (see paragraphs 0104-0106, Examiner’s note: as amended this new limitation broadly defines the terms individual work unit and batch work unit. Here “works” is interpreted to include tasks. A task corresponds to a device (as shown in paragraph 0093 and 0098 of Niina et al.). The plurality of tasks could correspond to one device or multiple different devices as broadly claim as amended. An individual work unit could include on individual task being monitored according to a threshold. A batch unit could include multiple tasks being monitored according to a threshold. Therefore a batch in Niina et al. would be in paragraph 0105-0106 where multiple task determinations are made (e.g. a number of times or an accumulations of times), whereas in paragraphs 0104 one task determination is made with respect to a duration (e.g. an individual work unit)).
Executing with a processor (see abstract, paragraph 0093-0095, Examiner’s note: abnormality monitoring system including a device with a processing unit).
Based on the models (see paragraph 0011, 0095 and 0124, Examiner’s note: simulation of a device by software using a device model).
Stored in the memory (see paragraphs 0021, 0098, and 0099-0100, Examiner’s note: executed using software (see paragraphs 0021 and 0098). Storing information in storage (see paragraph 0099-0100)).
a simulation using a digital space reproduced based on a real space in which the service is provided; (see paragraph 0011, 0095 and 0124, Examiner’s note: simulation of a device by software using a device model).
repeating the simulation until a simulation result satisfying a predetermined convergence condition is obtained, the predetermined convergence condition being obtained when a simulated work time for the batch work unit is less than a preset standard working time for the batch work unit (see paragraphs 0101 and 0105-0106, Examiner’s note: teaches process is run for a predetermined time and then repeated so with updated information so the simulated time is less than the total working time (e.g. standard working time) for the system).
and setting a threshold to detect an occurrence of an abnormality in the one or more works related to the provision of the service in the real space for each individual work unit and the batch work unit corresponding to the one or more works based on the simulation result in which the convergent condition is satisfied, (see paragraphs 0052-0054, 0104-0106, 0119, 122-124, Examiner’s note: teaches thresholds are based on information over time and updating and repeating information over time).
wherein, the step of setting the threshold comprises the steps of: calculating for each individual work unit, a simulation time difference indicating a time different between a preset standard working time and a simulated working time of each individual work unit included in the simulation result satisfying the convergent condition, and setting a threshold corresponding to the simulation time difference for each individual work unit, wherein a work unit having a larger simulation time difference is given a threshold larger than that of a work unit having a smaller simulation time difference, and setting a threshold corresponding to the simulation time difference for the batch work based on a combination of the thresholds set for each individual work unit(see paragraphs 0118-0124, Examiner’s note: here teaches adjusting the threshold based on the difference between the simulation and the actual work, a user can select a larger threshold with a larger simulation time difference as a user can select thresholds based on three standard deviations from the mean, which would be larger in a large standard deviation vs a small standard deviation. This could also be done as a user choice/selection as a user can select the threshold based on the calculated data as shown in paragraphs 0118-0124). As additionally shown these are based on past data which involve thresholds (e.g. thresholds set for each individual work units)).
Acquiring, in real-time, time-series, information for the one or more works being performed in the real space corresponding to the one or more works; based on the time series information, calculating an actual work time for each individual work unit and the batch work unit corresponding to the one or more works being performed in the real space; calculating a real time difference indicating a time difference between actual work time of the batch work unit or individual work unit and the standard working time of the batch work unit or the standard working time of the individual work unit; determining that an abnormality occurs in the individual work unit when the real time difference in the batch work unit is greater than the threshold set for the batch work unit and the real time difference in the individual work unit is greater than the threshold set for the individual work unit; (see paragraph 0097 and 0104-0106, Examiner’s note: making different determinations where the information can be provided in real time. Here when the determinations 1-3 in paragraphs 104-0106 result in greater than a threshold, the result is an abnormality further if one of 1-3 or two of 1-3 result in greater than a threshold the result is an abnormality as well).
Based on determining an abnormality occurs, generating a distribution of resources for the one or more works being provided in the real space, the distribution of resources satisfying the predetermined converge condition; and transmitting the distribution of resources corresponding to the one or more works being provided in the real space (see paragraphs 0121-0123, Examiner’s note: updating information over time).
Niina et al. does note expressly teach (1) providing a service from business operator to a business customer. (2) receiving from and transmitting information to one or more servers.
However, Stafford et al. which is in the art of comparing actual to predicted factory production information to determine if a variance is above a threshold to generate an alert (see abstract and Figures 3 and 4A-4B), teaches (1) providing a service from business operator to a business customer (see paragraph 0038, 0097, Examiner’s note: teaches a customer service interface where the factory produces products and there can be multiple users).
(2) receiving from and transmitting information to one or more servers (see paragraphs 0031-0035, 0052-0054, Examiner’s note: teaches a system with servers and client devices communicating over a network).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Niina et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Stafford with the motivation of providing the commonly known attribute of providing information to interested users like customers (see Stafford paragraph 0020) as well as providing a commonly known way to provide information from a specific type of device like a server through a network (see Stafford paragraphs 0031-0035, 0052-0054), when providing information of interest to a user (See Niina paragraphs 0119-0123 and Figures 4-5) and providing information across multiple devices according to a common line is known (see Niina et al. paragraphs 0093-0095).
As per claim 4, Ninna teaches
Wherein the generating the distribution of resources comprises the steps of: when it is determined that the abnormality occurs in the individual work unit or the batch work unit, (see paragraphs 0052-0054, 0104-0106, 0119, 122-124, Examiner’s note: teaches thresholds are based on information over time and updating and repeating information over time).
performing redistribution of resources to be input to the one or more works; repeating the simulation until a new simulation result satisfying the convergent condition is obtained by using the digital space in which the resource reallocation is performed; and resetting the threshold for each work unit based on the new simulation result. (see paragraphs 0111, 0114-0116, 0118-0121, and 0123-0125, Examiner’s note: teaches inputting changes into a model and updating the model and thresholds over time based on actual and simulation information collected and differences determined).
As per claim 5, Niina teaches A device to manage a service provided from a business operator, comprising a processor configured to: (see abstract, paragraph 0093-0095, Examiner’s note: abnormality monitoring system including a device with a processing unit).
Storing in a memory, one or more models corresponding to a service being performed in a real space by one or more works, (see paragraphs 0021, 0098, and 0099-0100, Examiner’s note: executed using software (see paragraphs 0021 and 0098). Storing information in storage (see paragraph 0099-0100)).
Wherein each work among the one or more works corresponds to an individual work unit, and a plurality of works among the one or more works corresponds to a batch work unit; (see paragraphs 0104-0106, Examiner’s note: as amended this new limitation broadly defines the terms individual work unit and batch work unit. Here “works” is interpreted to include tasks. A task corresponds to a device (as shown in paragraphs 0093 and 0098 of Niina et al.). The plurality of tasks could correspond to one device or multiple different devices as broadly claim as amended. An individual work unit could include on individual task being monitored according to a threshold. A batch unit could include multiple tasks being monitored according to a threshold. Therefore a batch in Niina et al. would be in paragraph 0105-0106 where multiple task determinations are made (e.g. a number of times or an accumulations of times), whereas in paragraphs 0104 one task determination is made with respect to a duration (e.g. an individual work unit)).
Execute processing, (see abstract, paragraph 0093-0095, Examiner’s note: abnormality monitoring system including a device with a processing unit).
based on the models stored in the memory, (see paragraphs 0021, 0098, and 0099-0100, Examiner’s note: executed using software (see paragraphs 0021 and 0098). Storing information in storage (see paragraph 0099-0100)).
to simulate using a digital space reproduced based on the real space in which the service is provided; (see paragraphs 0011, 0095 and 0124, Examiner’s note: simulation of a device by software using a device model).
execute processing to repeat the simulation until a simulation result satisfying a predetermined convergence condition is obtained, the predetermined convergence condition being obtained when a simulated work time for the batch work unit is less than a preset standard working time for the batch work unit; (see paragraphs 0101 and 0105-0106, Examiner’s note: teaches process is run for a predetermined time and then repeated with updated information so the simulated time is less than the total working time (e.g. standard working time) for the system).
execute processing to set a threshold for detecting an occurrence of an abnormality in the one or more works related to the provision of the service in the real space for individual each work unit and the batch work unit based on the simulation result in which the convergent condition is satisfied, (see paragraphs 0052-0054, 0104-0106, 0119, 122-124, Examiner’s note: teaches thresholds are based on information over time and updating and repeating information over time).
wherein, in the processing to set the threshold, the processor is further configured to: execute processing to calculate, for each individual work unit, a simulation time difference indicating a time difference between a preset standard working time and a simulated work time of each individual work unit included in the simulation result satisfying the convergent condition and execute processing to set a threshold corresponding to the simulation time difference for each individual work unit wherein, in the processing to set the threshold, a work unit having a large simulation time difference is assigned a threshold larger than a work unit having a small simulation time difference, and execute processing to set a threshold corresponding to the simulation time difference for the batch work unit based on a combination of the thresholds set for each individual work unit (see paragraphs 0118-0124, Examiner’s note: here teaches adjusting the threshold based on the difference between the simulation and the actual work, a user can select a larger threshold with a larger simulation time difference as a user can select thresholds based on three standard deviations from the mean, which would be larger in a large standard deviation vs a small standard deviation. This could also be done as a user choice/selection as a user can select the threshold based on the calculated data as shown in paragraphs 0118-0124). As additionally shown these are based on past data which involve thresholds (e.g. thresholds set for each individual work units)).
Execute processing to acquire, in real-time, time-series, information for the one or more works being performed in the real space corresponding to the one or more works; based on the time series information, execute processing to calculate an actual work time for each individual work unit and the batch work unit corresponding to the one or more works being performed in the real space; execute processing to calculate a real time difference indicating a time difference between actual work time of the batch work unit or individual work unit and the standard working time of the batch work unit or the standard working time of the individual work unit; execute processing to determine that an abnormality occurs in the individual work unit when the real time difference in the batch work unit is greater than the threshold set for the batch work unit and the real time difference in the individual work unit is greater than the threshold set for the individual work unit; (see paragraph 0097 and 0104-0106, Examiner’s note: making different determinations where the information can be provided in real time. Here when the determinations 1-3 in paragraphs 104-0106 result in greater than a threshold, the result is an abnormality further if one of 1-3 or two of 1-3 result in greater than a threshold the result is an abnormality).
Based on determining an abnormality occurs, execute processing to generate a distribution of resources for the one or more works being provided in the real space, the distribution of resources satisfying the predetermined converge condition; and execute processing to transmit the distribution of resources corresponding to the one or more works being provided in the real space (see paragraphs 0121-0123, Examiner’s note: updating information over time).
Niina et al. does note expressly teach (1) providing a service from business operator to a business customer. (2) receiving from and transmitting information to one or more servers.
However, Stafford et al. which is in the art of comparing actual to predicted factory production information to determine if a variance is above a threshold to generate an alert (see abstract and Figures 3 and 4A-4B), teaches (1) providing a service from business operator to a business customer (see paragraph 0038, 0097, Examiner’s note: teaches a customer service interface where the factory makes products and there can be multiple users).
And (2) receiving from and transmitting information to one or more servers (see paragraphs 0031-0035, 0052-0054, Examiner’s note: teaches a system with servers and client devices communicating over a network).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Niina et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Stafford with the motivation of providing the commonly known attribute of providing information to interested users like customers (see paragraph 0020) as well as providing a commonly known way to provide information from and to a specific type of device like a server through a network (see Stafford paragraphs 0031-0035, 0052-0054), when providing information of interest to a user (See Niina paragraphs 0119-0123 and Figures 4-5) and providing information across multiple devices according to a common line is known (see Niina et al. paragraphs 0093-0095).
As per claim 8, Niina teaches
Wherein, the processing to generate the distribution of resources, the processor is further configured to: execute processing to redistribute resources to be input to the one or more works when it is determined that the abnormality has occurred in the individual work unit or the batch work unit; (see paragraphs 0052-0054, 0104-0106, 0119, 122-124, Examiner’s note: teaches thresholds are based on information over time and updating and repeating information over time).
execute processing to repeat the simulation until a new simulation result satisfying the convergent condition is obtained by using the digital space in which the resource reallocation is performed; and execute processing to reset the threshold for each work unit based on the new simulation result. (see paragraphs 0111, 0114-0116, 0118-0121, and 0123-0125, Examiner’s note: teaches inputting changes into a model and updating the model and thresholds over time based on actual and simulation information collected and differences determined).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Seki et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2019/0384240) teaches a system for determining the difference between an actual measurement and a simulated measurement according to a threshold to make a determination on what to do (see paragraphs 0072 and 0081)
Richkard et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2021/0255748) teaches a system for determining the difference between an actual measurement and a simulated measurement according to a threshold to make a determination on what to do (see paragraphs 0072 and 0081)
Rumi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2006/0224254) teaches a system for monitoring sensor data to optimize the industrial factory process (see abstract)
Sturrock et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2009/0089027) teaches a system for simulating control to emulate one or more simulation models where these can be turned on and off (see abstract and Figure 1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626