DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 28 July 2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 13, and 14 have been amended. Claims 2 and 6 have been cancelled. Claims 7 and 8 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-14 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 3-5, and 9-14 have been examined on their merits.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 10-20, filed 28 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1, 3-5, and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments,
The focus of the claims is therefore the operation and evaluation of a cyber-physical production-line model, not a mathematical formula in the abstract. Although the claims employ calculations, the presence of a mathematical operation does not by itself make the claim directed to a mathematical concept. The calculations are inseparably tied to measured physical-machine data, a production-facility model, adjustment of that model to address a detected physical/model discrepancy, generation of corresponding control information, and simulation of the adjusted production-facility model using that control information. … (see Remarks, pg. 12, paragraph 2 – pg. 13, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per the applicant’s statement “… the claims employ calculations …”, the examiner maintains the claimed limitation of “… calculates a difference between the production line model data and the actual machine data” falls within the mathematical concept group of abstract ideas of the subject matter eligibility requirement. Further, the examiner recognizes the applicant has summarized additional elements of the claimed invention that were treated in step 2A, prong two and step 2B of the subject matter eligibility requirement, and not that of step 2A, prong one. Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
The claims also do not recite a mental process. The claimed process requires actual machine data obtained through physical measurement of production facilities, adjustment of detailed cyberspace-model data, generation of control information for the production facilities, and execution of a simulation using the adjusted model data and generated control information. These operations are not practically performable in the human mind or with pen and paper. (see Remarks, pg. 12, paragraph 2 – pg. 13, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
None of the claimed limitations as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1, 3-5, and 9-14 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 3 June 2026 were indicated as a mental concept; hence, the applicant’s argument is not applicable and rendered moot.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
Similarly, the claims do not recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The production facilities, model data, control information, and simulation are technological components and operations. Creating machine-control information from adjusted production-facility model data is not the management of human behavior merely because it is performed in accordance with a defined adjustment plan. The Office Action characterized individual limitations, such as the creation of adjustment plans or control information, as potentially involving instructions or rules. However, the relevant inquiry is not whether an isolated limitation can be described at a high level as following a rule. Rather, the claim must be evaluated based on its actual technological content and its character as a whole. (see Remarks, pg. 12, paragraph 2 – pg. 13, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant has not provided arguments/rationales/evidence directed to why the limitation of “upon determination that the difference exists on a basis of a result of calculating the difference, … creates one or more adjustment plans each targeting at least one of the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace or the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space” is not an activity performed by a human as set forth in step 2A, prong one of the subject eligibility requirement in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 3 June 2026. Hence, the argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments,
The production-line limitations meaningfully constrain how the alleged exception is used. In particular, the calculated difference is a discrepancy between measured physical-machine data and corresponding cyberspace-model data. That detected discrepancy causes creation of an adjustment plan containing information for modifying the model data so as to reduce the discrepancy. The adjusted model data is then used to create production-facility control information, and the adjusted data and created control information are used together in a simulation that produces the predetermined evaluation-index value. Thus, the calculation is used within a specific feedback and simulation process: physical measurement model/physical-system comparison model-data adjustment control-information generation simulation-based technical evaluation. This ordered process applies the alleged mathematical concepts to improve the reliability and usefulness of the cyberspace model of the production line. The claims enable proposed adjustments to be evaluated under generated facility control information before the proposed adjustment is implemented in the actual production environment. (see Remarks, pg. 13, paragraph 2)
As described in the Specification, including paragraphs [0090]-[0096] and FIG. 9, the claimed process permits technical consequences of proposed production-line adjustments to be evaluated in cyberspace, including consequences relating to production-facility operation and performance. The claims thereby apply any alleged mathematical concept to a concrete technological process, rather than merely calculating and displaying information. (pg. 14, paragraph 2)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant has presented a summary of the claimed invention which details the use of data generated per an abstract idea to use in another abstract idea to generate additional data. Further, the applicant has not provided arguments/rationales/evidence directed to why each additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, as set forth in claim 1, the applicant does not explain why the limitations of “… holds production line model data related to a model of one or more production facilities in a cyberspace of a production line and actual machine data obtained by actually measuring one or more production facilities disposed in an actual space of the production line” and “… outputs the one or more adjustment plans having been created” are more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application. Hence, the argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments,
This ordered process applies the alleged mathematical concepts to improve the reliability and usefulness of the cyberspace model of the production line. The claims enable proposed adjustments to be evaluated under generated facility control information before the proposed adjustment is implemented in the actual production environment. The claimed simulation is not merely the calculation of a score using generic data. (see Remarks, pg. 13, paragraph 3 – pg. 12, paragraph 1)
The claimed elements therefore impose meaningful limits on the alleged exception and integrate any such exception into a practical application that improves a technological process. (pg. 14, paragraph 4)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner respectfully notes the applicant has set forth statements directed to the use of the claimed invention and an advantage (i.e. benefit) of use of the claimed invention without providing any specific arguments/rationales/evidence to why the additional limitations amount to an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.04(a)). Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive since the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, prong two of the subject matter eligibility requirement).
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
The Office Action's Prong Two analysis of original claim 6 identified essentially only "the controller" as an additional element and concluded that the controller was generic. That analysis does not address the amended claims as a whole. The relevant additional limitations are not merely the existence of a controller. They include the claimed relationship among measured physical-machine data, corresponding cyberspace-model data, adjustment of the model to reduce a detected discrepancy, creation of control information using the adjusted model, and simulation based on the adjusted model and created control information. (see Remarks, 14, paragraph 3)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 6 was previously dependent from claim 1, as set forth in the claims filed on 31 May 2023 and examined as such in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 3 June 2026, therefore the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated into claim 6 by virtue of its dependency on claim 1. Hence, the rejection of claim 1 is also applicable to the rejection of claim 6; hence, he applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
The Office Action's Step 2B analysis addressed the original limitations largely by separating them into data gathering, generic computer implementation, and outputting data. For original claim 1, for example, the Office treated storage of model and machine data as data gathering and output of adjustment plans as data transmission. For original claim 6, the Office again considered only the generic controller as the relevant additional element. (see Remarks, pg. 15, paragraph 3)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 6 was previously dependent from claim 1, as set forth in the claims filed on 31 May 2023 and examined as such in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 3 June 2026, therefore the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated into claim 6 by virtue of its dependency on claim 1. Hence, the rejection of claim 1 is also applicable to the rejection of claim 6; hence, he applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
In Diehr, the Supreme Court held eligible claims that employed a mathematical equation within a technological process for curing rubber. The Court explained that the claims were not directed to the mathematical equation in isolation, but instead applied the equation as part of an ordered industrial process involving repeated physical measurements and operation of manufacturing equipment. The Court further emphasized that the claims were to be considered as a whole rather than dissected into individual mathematical and non- mathematical elements. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187-88.
The amended claims here are analogous. They do not seek to patent the calculation of a difference, the calculation of an evaluation index, or simulation in the abstract. Rather, those operations are incorporated into a specific cyber-physical production-line process. Actual machine data obtained by measuring physical production facilities is compared with corresponding cyberspace-model data. Upon detection of a discrepancy, an adjustment plan provides information for modifying the model data to reduce that discrepancy. Control information for the production facilities is then created using the adjusted model data, and a simulation based on the adjusted model data and created control information is executed to calculate the evaluation-index value.
Thus, as in Diehr, the calculations are used as part of a larger technological process directed to evaluating and improving operation of an industrial system. The fact that mathematical calculations are involved does not convert the claimed process into an abstract idea. Just as the calculations in Diehr were tied to measured conditions and operation of a rubber-curing process, the calculations here are tied to measured conditions of physical production facilities and operation of a corresponding cyber-physical production-line model. (see Remarks, pg. 16, paragraph 3 – pg. 17, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Diehr, there is a constant determination of a value (i.e. temperature of a mold) based on operating a device, repetitive calculation and comparisons, and control of the device based on the calculation (i.e. the opening of a press) that were determined to amount to significantly more than simply calculating a (mold) time using an (Arrhenius) equation because they add meaningful limitations on the use of the equation. The claimed limitations, as a whole, are solely directed to abstract concepts without any additional elements (as set forth in step 2B of the subject matter eligibility requirement of the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 3 June 2026) that provide significantly more than the abstract ideas (i.e. mathematical concepts and human activities) as in the case of Diehr’s molding rubber products. Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
The amended claims are also analogous to those found eligible in Thales. There, the Federal Circuit held that claims employing mathematical equations were patent eligible because the equations were used in a particular technological arrangement to determine the position and orientation of a physical object. The court rejected an abstraction of the claims as merely directed to mathematical equations and focused instead on the claimed system and the specific manner in which the calculations were used. Thales, 850 F.3d at 1348-49.
The same reasoning applies here. The amended claims do not broadly claim the concept of comparing two values or assigning a score. They require the calculations to be performed within a defined cyber-physical configuration involving measured actual-machine data, corresponding production-line model data, an adjustment of the model data directed to reducing the detected discrepancy, generation of production-facility control information from the adjusted model data, and simulation using both the adjusted data and the generated control information. As in Thales, the mathematical operations are limited to and applied through a particular technological arrangement. They are not claimed apart from that arrangement. (see Remarks, pg. 17, paragraphs 3 and 4)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Thales, the courts found the claims are not merely directed to the abstract of using mathematical equations to determine a relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame per use inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner. The Applicant has only presented a broad and conclusionary statement “As in Thales, the mathematical operations are limited to and applied through a particular technological arrangement.” without stating how the claimed limitations entail a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement that improves the functioning of a computer or an improvement to any other technology or technical field. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive since the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits that provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
The amended claims are likewise consistent with McRO. In McRO, the Federal Circuit found claims patent eligible because they recited a specific process that used particular rules to produce a technological result, rather than merely claiming the desired result of automated animation. The court explained that the claimed rules constrained how the result was achieved and represented a specific implementation rather than an instruction to apply an abstract idea on a computer. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-16.
Here, the amended claims do not merely instruct a controller to "evaluate" or "optimize" an adjustment plan. They specify how the evaluation is technically produced. The controller compares measured machine data with corresponding model data, identifies a discrepancy, creates an adjustment plan containing information for adjusting the model data to reduce that discrepancy, creates control information using the adjusted data, and executes a simulation based on the adjusted data and created control information. Those limitations constrain the manner in which the evaluation-index value is generated. The claims therefore recite a particular technological implementation rather than a result-oriented instruction. (see Remarks, pg. 18, paragraphs 1-2)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.05(II):
The courts have also found that improvements in technology beyond computer functionality may demonstrate patent eligibility. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1103. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Id. The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. 837 F.3d at 1314, 120 USPQ2d at 1102. The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101.
In summary, the claims of McRo were directed to a specific method to solve a problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming an idea of a solution or outcome. The examiner recognizes the Applicant has not provided any arguments/rationales/evidence as to how the claimed limitations improve (i.e. enhancement) the functioning of a computer or improve (i.e. enhancement) any other technology or technical field. Since the claims are directed to use of data generated per an abstract idea to use in another abstract idea to generate additional data and the Applicant has not recited any improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to any other technology or technical field to which the claims are directed, the argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
The claims are further analogous to Enfish. There, the Federal Circuit cautioned against describing claims at an unduly high level of abstraction untethered from the claim language and held eligible claims directed to a specific improvement in the operation of a computer database. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-39.
The Office Action's characterization of the present claims as merely calculating values, organizing human activity, gathering data, and outputting results similarly abstracts away the specific claimed architecture. The claims are not directed generally to planning or scoring. They recite a particular production-line modeling and simulation process in which physical measurements are reconciled with corresponding cyberspace-model data, the model data is adjusted to reduce a detected discrepancy, control information is generated from the adjusted model, and simulation is performed using those specific inputs. As in Enfish, the eligibility analysis should focus on that claimed technological implementation rather than a generalized description divorced from the actual limitations. (see Remarks, pg. 18, paragraph 3 - pg. 19, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant has not clearly explained how “… physical measurements are reconciled with corresponding cyberspace-model data, the model data is adjusted to reduce a detected discrepancy, control information is generated from the adjusted model, and simulation is performed using those specific inputs” improves the operational functionality/characteristics of a computer (as required by Enfish). Further, the examiner notes the applicant has set forth an advantage of use (i.e. a benefit of “… reduce a detected discrepancy …”) and intended use (“… simulation is performed using those specific inputs) without providing any improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a); i.e. The applicant has failed to provide any arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the claimed limitations provide an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to an adjustment in a simulation environment). Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
Finally, the amended claims are comparable to the eligible claims in CardioNet. There, the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to a specific technological technique for analyzing cardiac signals were not rendered abstract merely because they involved analysis of measured data. The court focused on the claimed improvement in the operation of a technological monitoring system and rejected a characterization of the claims as merely collecting, analyzing, and reporting information. CardioNet, 955 F.3d at 1368-71.
The amended claims here likewise do more than collect and analyze production information. They use actual machine measurements in a specific cyber-physical feedback process that adjusts corresponding model data, creates production-facility control information from the adjusted model, and performs a simulation using the adjusted model data and generated control information. The claimed operations thereby improve the technical reliability and usefulness of the production-line model and permit proposed adjustments to be evaluated in cyberspace in relation to operation of the physical production facilities. (see Remarks, pg. 19, paragraphs 2-3).
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant has not clearly explained how “… (using) actual machine measurements in a specific cyber-physical feedback process that adjusts corresponding model data, creates production-facility control information from the adjusted model, and performs a simulation using the adjusted model data and generated control information.” provides an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (as required by CardioNet). Further, the examiner notes the applicant has set forth an advantage of use (i.e. a benefit of “… the technical reliability and usefulness of the production-line model …”) and intended use (“… permit proposed adjustments to be evaluated in cyberspace in relation to operation of the physical production facilities.”) without providing any improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a); i.e. The applicant has failed to provide any arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the claimed limitations provide an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to an adjustment in a simulation environment). Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
Accordingly, the amended claims are materially analogous to the patent-eligible claims in Diehr, Thales, McRO, Enfish, and CardioNet. In each instance, eligibility followed because the claims did not merely recite an abstract calculation or desired result, but instead applied the alleged abstract concept through a specific technological process or arrangement. The amended claims here similarly apply any alleged mathematical concept through a particular cyber-physical production-line architecture involving measured machine data, corresponding model data, discrepancy-responsive model adjustment, control-information generation, and simulation-based technical evaluation. These comparisons further confirm that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea and, alternatively, integrate any alleged exception into a practical application and recite significantly more. (pg. 19, paragraph 4 – pg. 20, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner refers to the above response, pg. 8, paragraph 10 – pg. 15, paragraph 14 of this Office action, and the argument herein as addressed.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 20, paragraph 3, filed 28 July 2028, with respect to rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claims amendments filed on 28 July 2026. The rejections of 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, and 14 have been withdrawn.
Examiner’s Note:
The examiner respectfully notes the applicant has not provided any remarks/arguments directed to the objections of claims 3 and 12 in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 3 June 2026. The amendments obviate the objections of claims 3 and 12.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 9-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth 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, 3-5, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the claim recites “(an) adjustment support systems” comprising of concrete device (i.e. a controller and storage), and therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… calculates a difference between the production line model data and the actual machine data”; “upon determination that the difference exists on a basis of a result of calculating the difference, … creates one or more adjustment plans each targeting at least one of the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace or the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space”; … creates a plurality of the adjustment plans”; “… calculates, for each of the plurality of adjustment plans having been created, a value of a predetermined evaluation index in a case where adjustment is performed”; “in a case where the one or more adjustment plans include the adjustment plan targeting the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace, the adjustment plan includes information for adjusting data of the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace so as to reduce the difference”; “… creates control information of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace by using the data of the model of the one or more production facilities, the data being adjusted on a basis of the adjustment plan”; and “… calculates the value of the predetermined evaluation index by executing a simulation based on the data having been adjusted and the control information having been created”.
The limitation of “… calculates a difference between the production line model data and the actual machine data” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0077842 A1: pg. 2, par. [0030] is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations of “upon determination that the difference exists on a basis of a result of calculating the difference, … creates one or more adjustment plans each targeting at least one of the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace or the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space” and “… in a case where the one or more adjustment plans include the adjustment plan targeting the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace, the adjustment plan includes information for adjusting data of the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace so as to reduce the difference”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… creates one or more adjustment plans each targeting at least one of the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace or the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “upon determination that the difference exists on a basis of a result of calculating the difference …”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Further, the limitation “… in a case where the one or more adjustment plans include the adjustment plan targeting the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace, the adjustment plan includes information for adjusting data of the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace so as to reduce the difference” further details the limitation of “the one or more adjustment plans” as set forth above; and is addressed herein for the same rational as set forth above.
The limitation of “… creates a plurality of the adjustment plans”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… creates a plurality of the adjustment plans”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “upon determination that the difference exists on a basis of a result of calculating the difference …” per claim 1), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… calculates, for each of the plurality of adjustment plans having been created, a value of a predetermined evaluation index in a case where adjustment is performed …” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0077842 A1: pg. 7, par. [0110] is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… creates control information of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace by using the data of the model of the one or more production facilities, the data being adjusted on a basis of the adjustment plan”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… creates control information of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… using the data of the model of the one or more production facilities, the data being adjusted on a basis of the adjustment plan”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… calculates the value of the predetermined evaluation index by executing a simulation based on the data having been adjusted and the control information having been created” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0077842 A1: pg. 8, par. [0118] is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “a controller”; “a storage”; “wherein the storage holds production line model data related to a model of one or more production facilities in a cyberspace of a production line and actual machine data obtained by actually measuring one or more production facilities disposed in an actual space of the production line”; “… the controller outputs the one or more adjustment plans having been created”; and “… outputs the plurality of adjustment plans and the value of the predetermined evaluation index”.
The limitations of “a controller”; “a storage”; and “a cyberspace of a production line” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… one or more production facilities disposed in an actual space of the production line” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… holds production line model data related to a model of one or more production facilities in a cyberspace of a production line and actual machine data obtained by actually measuring one or more production facilities disposed in an actual space of the production line” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… outputs the one or more adjustment plans having been created” and “… outputs the plurality of adjustment plans and the value of the predetermined evaluation index” represent the mere output of data. The limitations of “output(ting)” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “a controller”; “a storage”; and “a cyberspace of a production line” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitation of “… one or more production facilities disposed in an actual space of the production line” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… holds production line model data related to a model of one or more production facilities in a cyberspace of a production line and actual machine data obtained by actually measuring one or more production facilities disposed in an actual space of the production line”, as discussed above, amount to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “… outputs the one or more adjustment plans having been created” and “… outputs the plurality of adjustment plans and the value of the predetermined evaluation index”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
The limitation “… the evaluation index includes at least one of a required time of adjustment work based on each of the plurality of adjustment plans, a cost of the adjustment work, an operation time of the one or more production facilities after adjustment, a yield of the one or more production facilities after adjustment, or a throughput of the one or more production facilities after adjustment” in claim 3 further details the limitation of “a predetermined evaluation index” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Further, at step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… in a case where information for designating the predetermined evaluation index is input, … calculates the value of the predetermined evaluation index having been designated”.
The limitation of “… in a case where information for designating the predetermined evaluation index is input, … calculates the value of the predetermined evaluation index having been designated” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0077842 A1: pg. 7, par. [0117] is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… in a case where information for designating the predetermined evaluation index is input …” and “… the controller …”.
The limitation of “the controller” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… in a case where information for designating the predetermined evaluation index is input …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “the controller” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… in a case where information for designating the predetermined evaluation index is input …”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… selects the adjustment plan evaluated most highly among the plurality of adjustment plans on a basis of the value of the predetermined evaluation index”.
The limitation of “… selects the adjustment plan evaluated most highly among the plurality of adjustment plans on a basis of the value of the predetermined evaluation index”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… selects the adjustment plan evaluated most highly among the plurality of adjustment plans …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… on a basis of the value of the predetermined evaluation index”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… the controller …”.
The limitation of “… the controller …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “the controller” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5:
At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… in a case where information for indicating any of the plurality of adjustment plans is input …, … selects the adjustment plan having been indicated”.
The limitation of “… in a case where information for indicating any of the plurality of adjustment plans is input …, … selects the adjustment plan having been indicated”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. … selects the adjustment plan having been indicated”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… in a case where information for indicating any of the plurality of adjustment plans is input …”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “an input device”, “an output device”; “the controller causes the output device to display the plurality of adjustment plans and the value of the evaluation index”; and “… in a case where information for indicating any of the plurality of adjustment plans is input …”.
The limitations of “an input device”, “an output device”; and “the controller” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… display the plurality of adjustment plans and the value of the evaluation index” represent merely outputting data. The “display(ing)” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… in a case where information for indicating any of the plurality of adjustment plans is input …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “an input device”, “an output device”; and “the controller” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… display the plurality of adjustment plans and the value of the evaluation index”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
The limitation of “… in a case where information for indicating any of the plurality of adjustment plans is input …”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… creates one or more adjustment plans targeting the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace or the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space, not excluded from the adjustment target”.
The limitation of “… creates one or more adjustment plans targeting the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace or the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space, not excluded from the adjustment target”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… creates one or more adjustment plans targeting the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace or the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… not excluded from the adjustment target”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… the storage further holds information indicating that at least one of the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace or the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space is excluded from an adjustment target” and “… the controller …”.
The limitations of “the storage”, “the cyberspace” and “the controller” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… the one or more production facilities disposed in an actual space of the production line” is generality recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “… holds information indicating that at least one of the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace or the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space is excluded from an adjustment target” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “the storage”, “the cyberspace” and “the controller” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitation of “… the one or more production facilities disposed in an actual space of the production line” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “… holds information indicating that at least one of the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace or the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space is excluded from an adjustment target”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10:
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “in a case where information designating, as a subject of exclusion from the adjustment target, the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace or the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space is input …” and “… the controller stores information indicating that the subject is excluded from the adjustment target in the storage”.
The limitations of “the controller” and “the storage” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “in a case where information designating, as a subject of exclusion from the adjustment target, the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace or the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space is input …” and “… stores information indicating that the subject is excluded from the adjustment target …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “the controller” and “the storage” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitations of “in a case where information designating, as a subject of exclusion from the adjustment target, the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace or the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space is input …” and “… stores information indicating that the subject is excluded from the adjustment target …”, as discussed above, amount to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… in a case where one of the one or more adjustment plans is the adjustment plan targeting the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace and the adjustment plan is selected, the controller creates the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace, the model being adjusted on a basis of the adjustment plan having been selected”.
The limitation of “… in a case where one of the one or more adjustment plans is the adjustment plan targeting the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace and the adjustment plan is selected, … creates the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace, the model being adjusted on a basis of the adjustment plan having been selected”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… in a case where one of the one or more adjustment plans is the adjustment plan targeting the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace and the adjustment plan is selected … creates the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace, the model being adjusted …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… in a case where one of the one or more adjustment plans is the adjustment plan targeting the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace and the adjustment plan is selected, … a basis of the adjustment plan having been selected”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… in a case where one of the one or more adjustment plans is the adjustment plan targeting the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace and the adjustment plan is selected …” and “… the controller …”.
The limitation of “… the controller …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… in a case where one of the one or more adjustment plans is the adjustment plan targeting the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace and the adjustment plan is selected …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… the controller …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… in a case where one of the one or more adjustment plans is the adjustment plan targeting the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace and the adjustment plan is selected …”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12:
The limitations “… in a case where one of the one or more adjustment plans is the adjustment plan targeting the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace, the adjustment plan includes information for adjusting data of the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace so as to reduce the difference” …; “… in a case where one of the one or more adjustment plans is the adjustment plan targeting the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space, the adjustment plan includes information for adjusting arrangement of the one or more production facilities in the actual space so as to reduce the difference …”; “… in a case where one of the one or more adjustment plans is the adjustment plan targeting both the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace and the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space, the adjustment plan includes the data of the model of the one or more production facilities in the cyberspace and the information for adjusting the arrangement of the one or more production facilities in the actual space so as to reduce the difference” in claim 12 further details the limitation of “the adjustment plan” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 represents an equivalent non-transitory computer machine-readable storage medium claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to job planning and scheduling.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0228360 A1 discloses a production schedule creating apparatus, a production schedule creating method, and a production schedule creating program that are suitably applied to a production schedule creating apparatus that creates a production schedule of products.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0129801 A1 discloses a planning support apparatus includes a storage device and a computing device to efficiently estimate information about production time required for a production plan and achieve efficient production planning.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0137609 A1 discloses a production information management system and a production information management method.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2026/0219655 A1 discloses a production line planning device, for planning a production line for a product, stores product operation information, operation facility correspondence information, component classification information, and facility common ID information.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2026/0260191 A1 discloses generating a production plan that makes it possible both to attain an objective related to productivity and nurture proficiency of an operator.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
