DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on September 5, 2025. Claim 1 has been amended, claim 3 has been canceled, and claim 11 has been added.
Currently claims 1-2 and 4-11 are pending and claim 1 is independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/10/2025 appears to be in compliance with the previsions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-2 and 4-11 is maintained
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 7, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that independent claim 1, as now amended, and dependent claims 2 and 4-10 are not directed to an abstract idea for the reasons stated below, and thus the claimed invention is directed to patent eligible subject matter.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites limitations of “determine the priority rankings in accordance with the information on the production deadline, generating a priority ranking area, generating a production plan area, generating a production plan screen, accept selection and update the production schedule information” can be performed in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components include at least one processor, a display unit, a hard disk drive, and a network. However, reciting these generic computer components are merely adding the words “apply it” or using a particular machine with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer device. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
In the Remarks on page 7, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that even if, for the sake of argument, claim 1 somehow recites the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), claim 1, as a whole, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a display unit”, “a hard disk drive”, “at least one processor”, “a network”, and “a communication circuit” for performing the steps. The Specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality (see ¶ 21), and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, storing, displaying and transmitting information over a network. However, simply implementing the abstract idea with a generic computer component does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because none of the claim elements reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology. See Credit Acceptance, 859 F.3d at 1055 ("Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology."); see also Bancorp Services, L.L. C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer "employed only for its most basic function ... does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.").
In the Remarks on page 9, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that even if, for the sake of argument, claim 1 somehow considered to be directed to an abstract idea, the claims do not meet the requirement in Step 2B in which the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitations recited in the claim such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the additional elements are no more than generic computer components. Taking the claim elements separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements, at best, may perform generic computer functions including: displaying production plans for a plurality of types of shaped articles on a screen, displaying information on each type of the shaped articles on a screen, and storing digital data in a hard disk drive. However, using a generic computer component for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; 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)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
In the Remarks on page 13, Applicant argues that Hasegawa, Tabata, Nakayama and Schneider fail to disclose or suggest the at least one processor configured to generate a production plan editing area…; generate a production plan screen…; accept selection of the at least one shaping machine…; and update the production schedule information, as clearly recited in independent claim 1. However, Applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly amended claims, and therefore, the newly amended claims will be fully address in this Office Action.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phases “such that” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Dependent claims 2 and 4-11 are also rejected for the same reasons as each depends on the rejected claims.
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 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-2 and 4-11 are directed to a system comprising a display unit, a hard disk drive, and at least one processor, which falls within the statutory category of a machine.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Claim 1 recites the limitations of “display production plans, display information, store information related to production deadline, stock and defect, determine the priority rankings in accordance with the information on the production deadline, stock and defect, generate a priority ranking area in which the information on each type of the shaped article, generate a production plan editing area, control communication between the display unit and the processor, generate the production play screen, and transmit the production plan screen to the display unit via the network”, and the dependent claims 2 and 4-11 further characterizing and narrowing the limitations of claim 1. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only displaying characteristics of production plan as desired, and storing the production information. The limitations, as drafted, are methods for managing production plans including generating and displaying production status, production deadline, stock and defect information are concepts of fundamental economic practices, which fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The limitations of: determine the priority rankings in accordance with the information on the production deadline and generate a priority ranking area in which the information can be performed in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), and by a human using a pen and paper, which fall within the mental process grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “at least one processor” does not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing activity grouping and mental processing grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Further, the use of “a display unit” for displaying production plans, “a hard disk drive” for storing information, and “a network” for communication are similar to the concepts found to be directed to the abstract idea of “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data”, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. CapitalOne Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340, 121 USPQ2d 1940, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2017); and In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613-14 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (classifying and storing digital data in an organized manner is an abstract idea). Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a display unit”, “a hard disk drive”, “a network” and “at least one processor” for performing the steps. The Specification describes that ”The terminal device 400 is implemented as a computer that includes one or more processors, a storage device, and a display unit 450” (see ¶ 21). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components, and they are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions such as displaying information on a screen, storing digital data in a hard disk drive. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea with a generic computer component does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a display unit”, “a hard disk drive”, “a network” and “at least one processor” for performing the steps. The Specification describes that ”The terminal device 400 is implemented as a computer that includes one or more processors, a storage device, and a display unit 450” (see ¶ 21). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components, and they are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions such as displaying information on a screen, storing digital data in a hard disk drive. Taking the claim elements separately and as an ordered combination, the at least one processor, at best, may perform the generic computer functions including displaying information on a screen and storing digital data in a hard disk drive. However, using generic computer components for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto., LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 611-12, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); 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)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-2 and 4-11 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above. Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (JP 2005222448), and in view of Sato (US 2022/0245735), and further in view of Tabata et al., (JP 2003186532, hereinafter: Tabata), and Chihara et al., (see JP 2002308431, hereinafter: Chihara).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa discloses a production plan display system for a shaped article, the system comprising:
a display unit (see pg. 9, ¶ 2) configured to display a production plan screen showing production plans for a plurality of types of shaped article, the display unit being configured to display on the production plan screen in which at least information on each type of the shaped articles is displayed in accordance with priority rankings for changing the production plans thereof, each of the priority rankings being a ranking of priority indicating necessity to change each of the production plans of the shaped articles (see Abstract; pg. 2, ¶ 3; pg. 4, ¶ 2-3, pg. 10, ¶ ¶ 11; pg. 5, ¶ 1; pg. 6, ¶ 3; pg. 6, ¶ 9 to pg. 7, ¶ 3; pg. 8, ¶ 2-3, ¶ 6; pg. 10, ¶ 6-8; pg. 17, ¶ 3; pg. 20, ¶ 4; pg. 22, ¶ 1);
generate a priority ranking area in which the information on each type of the shaped articles is displayed in accordance with the priority rankings (see pg. 4, ¶ 8-11; pg. 8, ¶ 6; pg. 9, ¶ 5-7; pg. 10, ¶ 4-8), and
generate a production plan editing area in which a production plan of a shaped article that is designated from the shaped articles in the priority ranking area is displayed in an editable manner (see pg. 6, ¶ 9 to pg. 7, ¶ 3; pg. 8, ¶ 2-3 and last ¶; pg. 10, ¶ 2 to pg. 11, ¶ 3; pg. 16, ¶ 4; pg. 17, ¶ 3); and
a communication circuit configured to control communication between the display unit and the at least one processor via a network, and control communication between the at least one processor and the plurality of shaping machines (see pg. 5, ¶ 13; pg. 6, ¶ 3-4, ¶ 9; pg. 12, ¶ 4; pg. 15, ¶ 10; pg. 18, ¶ 3-6; pg. 23, ¶ 8),
the at least one processor (see pg. 6, ¶ 4; pg. 13, ¶ 3) being further configured to
generate a priority ranking area in which the information on each type of the shaped articles is displayed in accordance with the priority rankings (see pg. 8, ¶ 6; pg. 9, ¶ 7; pg. 10, ¶ 3 to pg. 11, ¶ 3; pg. 17, ¶ 3).
Hasegawa discloses the processing relating to production plan and allows user to adjust and change the production plan (see Abstract).
Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Sato in an analogous art for managing production plan discloses
generate a production plan editing area in which a production plan of a designated shaped article that is designated from the shaped articles in the priority ranking area is displayed in an editable manner, the production plan editing area including a production schedule information area and a selection area (see Fig. 35, #418; ¶ 84-86, ¶ 322-330, ¶ 344-345),
generate the production plan screen such that the priority ranking area and the production plan editing area are arranged and displayed on a same screen, and transmit the production plan screen to the display unit via the network under control of the communication circuit, such that the display unit displays the production plan screen (see ¶ 272-281, ¶ 344),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hasegawa to include teaching of Sato in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an optimized production plan, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of 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.
Hasegawa discloses an information processor includes a storage part for storing production condition and reference information (see Abstract); and a CPU (Central Processing Unit) for executing predetermined processing according to the program and a memory for storing the program (see Abstract; Fig. 4, # 49; pg. 6, ¶ 4; pg. 12, ¶ 4-5).
Hasegawa and Sato do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tabata in an analogous art for supporting production management discloses
a hard disk drive configured to store (see pg. 6, ¶ 1, ¶ 6, ¶ 10), for each type of the shaped articles, at least information on a production deadline, information on a stock, and information on a defect (see pg. 3, ¶ 4; pg. 12, ¶ 4).
at least one processor (see pg. 5, last ¶), configured to
determine the priority rankings in accordance with the information on the production deadline, the information on a stock, and information on the defect, which are stored in the hard disk drive for each type of the shaped articles (see pg. 3, ¶ 4-5, pg. 12, ¶ 4);
the production schedule information area being an area in which production schedule information of the designated shaped article including time information on a scheduled shipping date and a number of days left is displayed, the selection area being an area in which at least one shaping machine to be used to produce the designated shaped article is selected from the plurality of shaping machines (see pg. 2, ¶ 7-8; pg. 3, ¶ 3-5; pg. 4, ¶ 1-7; pg. 9, ¶ 9-12);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hasegawa and in view of Sato to include teaching of Tabata in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of detail analysis, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of 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.
Hasegawa, Sato and Tabata do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Chihara in an analogous art for inventory management discloses
accept selection of the at least one shaping machine in the selection area of the production plan editing area (see pg. 3, ¶ 1-2; pg. 5, ¶ 6; pg. 10, ¶ 10-11; pg. 14, claim 4), and
update the production schedule information based on the shaping machine information about the at least one shaping machine of which the selection has been accepted, such that the production schedule information that has been updated indicates the time information about a case where the designated shaped article is shaped using the at least one shaping machine of which the selection has been accepted, and the display unit displays the production plan screen in which the production schedule information has been updated (see ¶ 4, ¶ 2; pg. 7, ¶ 5; pg. 9, ¶ 3-9; pg. 10, ¶ 1; pg. 12, ¶ 8-9; pg. 14, claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hasegawa and in view of Sato and Tabata to include teaching of Chihara in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of more up-to-date information, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of 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, Hasegawa discloses the production plan display system according to claim 1, wherein
the hard disk drive is configured to further store information on an operation status of a shaping machine (see pg. 2, ¶ 6 to pg. 3, ¶ 1; pg. 3, ¶ 3-5; pg. 17, ¶ 8), and
the at least one processor configured to determine the priority rankings further based on the information on the operation status of the shaping machine (see pg. 4, ¶ 11-12; pg. 10, ¶ 3 to pg. 11, ¶ 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hasegawa discloses the production plan display system according to claim 1, wherein
information on the type whose production plan is changed is not displayed on the screen (see pg. 5, ¶ 5-7, ¶ 10-13; pg. 8, ¶ 2; pg. 9, ¶ 6).
In addition, claim 4 merely characterizing the type of information of the production plan is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 6, Hasegawa discloses the production plan display system according to claim 1, wherein
information on the priority rankings is displayed on the screen (see pg. 9, ¶ 7).
In addition, claim 6 merely describing the displayed information of the priority rankings is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 8, Hasegawa discloses the production plan display system according to claim 1, wherein
the hard disk drive is configured to further store information on at least one of information on an operation schedule of a mold and information on an operation schedule of a shaping machine corresponding to the mold (see pg. 2, ¶ 7 to pg. 3, ¶ 1; pg. 3, ¶ 4-5), and
the at least one processor configured to determine the priority rankings further based on the at least one of information on an operation schedule of the mold and the information on the operation schedule of the shaping machine corresponding to the mold (see pg. 9, ¶ 4 to pg. 10, ¶ 3; pg. 17, ¶ 6 to pg. 18, ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 10, Hasegawa discloses the production plan display system according to claim 1, wherein
the hard disk drive is configured to further store information on maintenance of a mold or a shaping machine (see pg. 7, ¶ 4 to pg. 8, ¶ 1), and
the at least one processor configured to determine the priority rankings further based on the maintenance of the mold or the shaping machine (see pg. 21, ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 11, Hasegawa discloses the production plan display system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to delete, from the priority ranking area, the designated shaped article for which the production schedule information has been updated (see pg. 6, ¶ 9 to pg. 7, ¶ 1; pg. 9, ¶ 1-2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa and in view of Sato, Tabata and Chihara as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8 and 11 above, and further in view of Takehara (JP 2021111091).
Regarding claim 5, Hasegawa, Sato, Tabata and Chihara do not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Takehara in an analogous art for displaying production plan discloses the production plan display system according to claim 1, wherein
information on a type whose production plan is changed is highlighted on the screen (see Fig. 11-12; pg. 8, ¶ 3-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hasegawa and in view of Sato, Tabata and Chihara to include teaching of Takehara in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhanced data presentation, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 5 merely characterizing the type of information of the production plan is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa and in view of Sato, Tabata and Chihara as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8 and 11 above, and further in view of Nakayama et al., (JP 2021002273, hereinafter: Nakayama).
Regarding claim 7, Hasegawa, Sato, Tabata and Chihara do not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Nakayama in an analogous art for molding article discloses the production plan display system according to claim 1, wherein
the hard disk drive configured to further store information on a production difficulty level for each type of the shaped articles (see pg. 3, ¶ 1-9; pg. 6, ¶ 3-4; pg. 8, ¶ 4-6), and
the at least one processor configured to determine the priority rankings further based on the production difficulty level for each type of the shaped articles (see pg. 3, ¶ 1-9; pg. 6, ¶ 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hasegawa and in view of Sato, Tabata and Chihara to include teaching of Nakayama in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa and in view of Sato, Tabata and Chihara as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8 and 11 above, and further in view of Schneider et al., (US 2023/0115525, hereinafter: Schneider).
Regarding claim 9, Hasegawa, Sato, Tabata and Chihara do not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Schneider in an analogous art for production planning discloses the production plan display system according to claim 8, wherein
a weight of the information on the operation schedule of the mold in determining the priority ranking is larger than a weight of the information on the operation schedule of the shaping machine corresponding to the mold (see ¶ 13-16, ¶ 31-32, ¶ 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hasegawa and in view of Sato, Tabata and Chihara to include teaching of Schneider in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for presenting the data, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 9 merely describing the relationship of the weights used for the priority ranking and the shaping machine is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fukao et al., (WO 2020166053) discloses a method for managing production plan of a board-processing work machine that produces a board product under restriction conditions set by the first setting unit and the priority ranking of a plurality of priority elements when allocating the articles.
Takehara, (JP 2021125628) discloses a production planning method for calculating the similarity rate of the product varieties and creating the production planning in which the production varieties are allotted to the component mounting line based on the similarity rate.
Chen (US 2004/0260419) discloses a method for generating a suggestive dispatch lot list for use by a production line operator in selecting, from a plurality of lots, the lot to process at least one of plurality of fabrication stages to maintain a predetermined production plan.
Leithinger et al., “Shape Displays: Spatial Interaction with Dynamic Physical Form”, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published by the IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 2015.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624