DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action per the Response to the Election/Restriction Requirement received on 13 February 2026. Claims 7 and 8 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-14 are pending in this application. Claims 1-6 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 Argument’s of Election/Restriction Requirement
Claims 7 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 13 February 2026.
With respect to the Applicant's argument,
Search and consideration of all claims can be carried out without serious burden. The MPEP states that if "the search and examination of all the claims in an application can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine them on the merits, even though they include claims to independent or distinct inventions" (emphasis added). See MPEP § 803. That is, according to the MPEP, even if a Restriction is proper, all claims must be examined if search and consideration of all claims does not pose a serious burden to the Examiner.
Here, it is respectfully submitted that the alleged different Groups are substantially related, such that search and consideration of one Group would necessarily encompass search and consideration of the other. Thus, search and consideration of all claims can be carried out without any burden on the Examiner. Accordingly, withdrawal of the Requirement is most respectfully requested. (see Remarks, pg. 1, paragraph 2 – pg. 2, paragraph 1)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A rationale was provided to support a serious burden to the Examiner in the Restriction/Election Requirement mailed on 28 January 2026, per the detailed explanation of why the inventions are distinct from each other and why the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses and employing different search queries); hence the Restriction/Election Requirement is made Final.
Claims 3 and 12 stand objected to and claims 1-6 and 9-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “a predetermined evaluation index” in lines 5-6 and claim 3 recites “the evaluation index” in line 3. The claims recite two different terms for the same limitation. Suggested claim language: “the evaluation index” in claim 3 should read “the predetermined evaluation index”; ; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 12 includes the erroneously placed “and” at the end of line 8. Suggested claim language: delete “and” at the end of line 8; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 13 appears to directed software per se in light of the recitation of “(an) adjustment support program”. A claim directed to functional descriptive material, including computer programs, per se, is not patent eligible subject matter. Computer programs may be explicitly claimed as, for example, a series of code or instructions for performing functions or may be implicitly claimed as, for example, a system, a module or an apparatus. Where there is no evidence in the specification that a means which may be interpreted as software, hardware or combinations thereof necessarily includes hardware, it will be interpreted in its broadest reasonable sense as a software means, which is the case here.
Absent of definition, a claim covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification or lack thereof, and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
It should be noted that functional descriptive material claimed in combination with an appropriate computer readable medium to enable the functionality to be realized is patent eligible subject matter.
The USPTO recognizes that Applicants may have claims directed to computer readable mediums that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 US.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Claims 1-6 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” and “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”.
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 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”, 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.
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”; and “… the controller outputs the one or more adjustment plans having been created”.
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 generally and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… outputs the one or more adjustment plans having been created” represents the mere output of data. The “output(ting) is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically that it represents 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 limitation of “… outputs the one or more adjustment plans having been created”, as discussed above, represents 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 2:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… creates a plurality of the adjustment plans …” and “… 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 …”.
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.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… the controller …” and “the controller outputs the plurality of adjustment plans and the value of the predetermined evaluation index”.
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 “… outputs the plurality of adjustment plans and the value of the predetermined evaluation index” represents the mere output of data. The “output(ting) is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents 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 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 “… outputs the plurality of adjustment plans and the value of the predetermined evaluation index”, as discussed above, represents 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 2; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 2.
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 generally 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 generally 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 generally 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 6:
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” in claim 6 further details the limitation of “the one or more adjustment plans” in claims 1 and 2; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claims 1 and 2.
Further, at step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… 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 “… 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 “… 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 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 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 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 generally 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 generally 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 generally 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:
Interest of compact prosecution and in the event the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 13 directed to non-statutory subject matter is overcome as follows in a subsequent amendment, claim 13 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. as directed to an abstract idea as follows:
Claim 13 represents an equivalent machine-readable 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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, 5, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2002/0103871 A1 (hereinafter Laycock) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0369579 A1 (hereinafter Paul).
As per claim 1, Laycock substantially teaches the claimed invention. Laycock teaches the limitations of an adjustment support system comprising:
a controller (pg. 4, par. [0040] and Fig. 4A, element 410; i.e. computing system, “… computing system 410 including an analysis engine 416. The computing system 410 includes at least one processor 411 having an associated memory 412, and a display device 418.”); and
a storage (pg. 4, par. [0040] and [0042] and Fig. 4A, element 412; i.e. a memory and [0040]: “… computing system 410 including an analysis engine 416. The computing system 410 includes at least one processor 411 having an associated memory 412, and a display device 418.” and [0042]: “The analysis engine 416 as shown may comprise instructions stored in memory 412 and executed by one or more processors 411.”),
wherein the storage (Fig. 4A, element 412; i.e. the memory) holds production plant model data related to a model of one or more production facilities in a cyberspace of a production plant and actual machine data obtained by actually measuring one or more production facilities disposed in an actual space of the production plant (pg. 2, par. [0026], pg. 4, par. [0041] and [0045], pg. 5, par. [0047]; i.e. [0041]: “The computing system 410 generally comprises one or more computing devices, such as one or more servers (e.g., a cloud computing platform) configured to receive operational data and to determine one or more tasks. The analysis engine 416 may be configured to receive, from one or more sensors or platforms associated with the plant 470, operational data, such as sensor measurements.” and [0047]: “The external servers 450 may include memory to be configured to store operational data and/or information used to determine operational data.”),
the controller calculates a difference between the production plant model data and the actual machine data (pg. 4, par. [0043], pg. 6, par. [0065], and pg. 7, par. [0072]; i.e. [0043]: “The analysis engine 416 processes and/or analyzes operational data. For example, the analysis engine 416 may be configured to execute code that compares operational data to threshold values and/or predetermined ranges. Machine learning algorithms may be used to process and/or interpret the operational data. For example, the analysis engine 416 may store and use historical operational data to teach a machine-learning algorithm acceptable ranges for operational data, and new operational data may be input into the machine learning algorithm to determine if an undesirable plant condition exists.”; [0065]: “For example, asset health and/or status may comprise a warning and/or alert that an amount of vibration of a particular asset (e.g., a pipe) has exceeded a threshold.”; and [0072]: “Analysis of operational data may comprise the use of a model of the plant. All or portions of the operational data may be used to model the plant, e.g., using a software simulation, and simulated plant values may be compared to actual values in the operational data.”),
upon determination that the difference exists on a basis of a result of calculating the difference, the controller creates one or more adjustment plans each targeting the one or more production facilities disposed in the actual space (pg. 7, par. [0073]; i.e. “In step 504, equipment issues are determined. In step 505, recommendations to address process issues or equipment issues are determined, which may be determined based on the analysis of the operational data. A recommendation may include one or more tasks, which may correspond to one or more actions performed with respect to the plant.”), and
the controller outputs the one or more adjustment plans having been created (pg. 7, par. [0080]; i.e. “The third column may include one or more recommendations for resolving one or more process issues and/or one or more asset issues. The graphical user interface 600 may visually depict one or more links between the process issues, asset issues, and/or recommendations.”).
Not explicitly taught is a production line.
However Paul, in analogous an operation planning (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teach the missing limitation of a production line (pgs. 2-3, par. [0041]; i.e. “… if a manufacturing plan is generated by the operation planning system, the operating devices 2a to 2d can be production lines, various manufacturing devices, plants and factories.”) for the purpose of determining an operation plan that satisfies a constraint on a system (pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Laycock to include the addition of the limitation of a production line to advantageously enable efficient generation of operations plans with a shorter time period (Paul: pg. 1, par. [0004]).
As per claim 2, Laycock teaches the controller (Fig. 4A, element 410; i.e. the computing system) creates a plurality of the adjustment plans (pg. 7, par. [0073]; i.e. “In step 504, equipment issues are determined. In step 505, recommendations to address process issues or equipment issues are determined, which may be determined based on the analysis of the operational data. A recommendation may include one or more tasks, which may correspond to one or more actions performed with respect to the plant.”),
the controller determined, for each of the plurality of adjustment plans having been created, a ranking in a case where adjustment is performed (pgs. 7-8, par. [0081]; i.e. “The graphical user interface may depict a most important recommendation at the top of the column of recommendations. The most important process issue, asset issue, and/or recommendation may be determined based on one or more factors, and may change over time (e.g., in real time) based on current operation data received regarding a plant.”), and
the controller outputs the plurality of adjustment plans (pg. 7, par. [0080]; i.e. “The third column may include one or more recommendations for resolving one or more process issues and/or one or more asset issues. The graphical user interface 600 may visually depict one or more links between the process issues, asset issues, and/or recommendations.”).
Laycock does not expressly teach the controller 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.
However Paul, in analogous an operation planning (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teach the missing limitation of calculates, for each of a plurality of adjustment plans having been created, a value of a predetermined evaluation index (i.e. score) in a case where adjustment is performed (pg. 15, par. [0202]; i.e. “The scores are values used for evaluating candidate operation plans.”) for the purpose of determining an operation plan that satisfies a constraint on a system (pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Laycock to include the addition of the limitation of calculates, for each of a plurality of adjustment plans having been created, a value of a predetermined evaluation index in a case where adjustment is performed to advantageously enable efficient generation of operations plans with a shorter time period (Paul: pg. 1, par. [0004]).
As per claim 4, Laycock teaches the controller selects the adjustment plan evaluated most highly among the plurality of adjustment plans on a basis of the ranking (pgs. 7-8, par. [0081] and [0088]; i.e. [0081]: “The graphical user interface may depict a most important recommendation at the top of the column of recommendations. The most important process issue, asset issue, and/or recommendation may be determined based on one or more factors, and may change over time (e.g., in real time) based on current operation data received regarding a plant. Illustrative examples of the one or more factors for determining the ordering of the one or more columns may include an impact on a production of the plant, an impact on an efficiency of the plant, an impact on a projected operating life of the plant, an impact on a profit or loss of the plant, an impact on one or more other assets or processes of the plant, or the like.” and [0088]: “For example, the system may receive input indicating user approval of a recommended change (e.g., to a pressure, a flow, a temperature), then after receiving the user approval, the system may automatically cause the recommended change.”).
Laycock does not expressly teach the value of the predetermined evaluation index.
However Paul, in analogous an operation planning (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teach the missing limitation of the value of the predetermined evaluation index (pg. 15, par. [0202]; i.e. “The scores are values used for evaluating candidate operation plans.”) for the purpose of determining an operation plan that satisfies a constraint on a system (pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Laycock to include the addition of the limitation of the value of the predetermined evaluation index to advantageously enable efficient generation of operations plans with a shorter time period (Paul: pg. 1, par. [0004]).
As per claim 5, Laycock teaches the adjustment support system according to claim 2, further comprising:
an input device (pg. 8, par. [0088]; i.e. “The graphical user interface may show more details, assign responsibility, and/or track progress towards completion. The graphical user interface may receive input setting a priority level for this recommendation.”); and
an output device (pg. 7, par. [0077]; i.e. “For example, one display for an engineer may display one action associated with the task, and a different display for a different engineer may display a different action associated with the same task. The display may include a prompt for permission to automatically take an action associated with the task.”),
wherein the controller causes the output device to display the plurality of adjustment plans (pgs. 7-8, par. [0081]; i.e. [0081]: “The graphical user interface may depict a most important recommendation at the top of the column of recommendations. The most important process issue, asset issue, and/or recommendation may be determined based on one or more factors, and may change over time (e.g., in real time) based on current operation data received regarding a plant. Illustrative examples of the one or more factors for determining the ordering of the one or more columns may include an impact on a production of the plant, an impact on an efficiency of the plant, an impact on a projected operating life of the plant, an impact on a profit or loss of the plant, an impact on one or more other assets or processes of the plant, or the like.”), and
in a case where information for indicating any of the plurality of adjustment plans is input to the input device (pg. 8, par. [0088]; i.e. [0088]: “For example, the system may receive input indicating user approval of a recommended change (e.g., to a pressure, a flow, a temperature), then after receiving the user approval, the system may automatically cause the recommended change.”),
the controller selects the adjustment plan having been indicated (pg. 8, par. [0088]; i.e. [0088]: “For example, the system may receive input indicating user approval of a recommended change (e.g., to a pressure, a flow, a temperature), then after receiving the user approval, the system may automatically cause the recommended change.”).
Laycock does not expressly teach the value of the evaluation index.
However Paul, in analogous an operation planning (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teach the missing limitation of the value of the predetermined evaluation index (pg. 15, par. [0202]; i.e. “The scores are values used for evaluating candidate operation plans.”) for the purpose of determining an operation plan that satisfies a constraint on a system (pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Laycock to include the addition of the limitation of the value of the predetermined evaluation index to advantageously enable efficient generation of operations plans with a shorter time period (Paul: pg. 1, par. [0004]).
As per claim 13, Laycock substantially teaches the claimed invention. Laycock teaches the limitations of an adjustment support program executed by an adjustment support system,
wherein the adjustment support system includes a controller (pg. 4, par. [0040] and Fig. 4A, element 410; i.e. computing system, “… computing system 410 including an analysis engine 416. The computing system 410 includes at least one processor 411 having an associated memory 412, and a display device 418.”) and a storage (pg. 4, par. [0040] and [0042] and Fig. 4A, element 412; i.e. a memory and [0040]: “… computing system 410 including an analysis engine 416. The computing system 410 includes at least one processor 411 having an associated memory 412, and a display device 418.” and [0042]: “The analysis engine 416 as shown may comprise instructions stored in memory 412 and executed by one or more processors 411.”),
the storage (Fig. 4A, element 412; i.e. the memory) holds production plant model data related to a model of one or more production facilities in a cyberspace of a production plant and actual machine data obtained by actually measuring one or more production facilities disposed in an actual space of the production plant (pg. 2, par. [0026], pg. 4, par. [0041] and [0045], pg. 5, par. [0047]; i.e. [0041]: “The computing system 410 generally comprises one or more computing devices, such as one or more servers (e.g., a cloud computing platform) configured to receive operational data and to determine one or more tasks. The analysis engine 416 may be configured to receive, from one or more sensors or platforms associated with the plant 470, operational data, such as sensor measurements.” and [0047]: “The external servers 450 may include memory to be configured to store operational data and/or information used to determine operational data.”), and
the adjustment support program causes the controller to execute
a procedure of calculating a difference between the production plant model data and the actual machine data (pg. 4, par. [0043], pg. 6, par. [0065], and pg. 7, par. [0072]; i.e. [0043]: “The analysis engine 416 processes and/or analyzes operational data. For example, the analysis engine 416 may be configured to execute code that compares operational data to threshold values and/or predetermined ranges. Machine learning algorithms may be used to process and/or interpret the operational data. For example, the analysis engine 416 may store and use historical operational data to teach a machine-learning algorithm acceptable ranges for operational data, and new operational data may be input into the machine learning algorithm to determine if an undesirable plant condition exists.”; [0065]: “For example, asset health and/or status may comprise a warning and/or alert that an amount of vibration of a particular asset (e.g., a pipe) has exceeded a threshold.”; and [0072]: “Analysis of operational data may comprise the use of a model of the plant. All or portions of the operational data may be used to model the plant, e.g., using a software simulation, and simulated plant values may be compared to actual values in the operational data.”),
upon determination that the difference exists on a basis of a result of calculating the difference, a procedure of creating 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 (pg. 7, par. [0073]; i.e. “In step 504, equipment issues are determined. In step 505, recommendations to address process issues or equipment issues are determined, which may be determined based on the analysis of the operational data. A recommendation may include one or more tasks, which may correspond to one or more actions performed with respect to the plant.”), and
a procedure of outputting the one or more adjustment plans having been created (pg. 7, par. [0080]; i.e. “The third column may include one or more recommendations for resolving one or more process issues and/or one or more asset issues. The graphical user interface 600 may visually depict one or more links between the process issues, asset issues, and/or recommendations.”).
Not explicitly taught is a production line.
However Paul, in analogous an operation planning (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teach the missing limitation of a production line (pgs. 2-3, par. [0041]; i.e. “… if a manufacturing plan is generated by the operation planning system, the operating devices 2a to 2d can be production lines, various manufacturing devices, plants and factories.”) for the purpose of determining an operation plan that satisfies a constraint on a system (pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Laycock to include the addition of the limitation of a production line to advantageously enable efficient generation of operations plans with a shorter time period (Paul: pg. 1, par. [0004]).
As per claim 14, Laycock substantially teaches the claimed invention. Laycock teaches the limitations of an adjustment support method executed by an adjustment support system, wherein the adjustment support system includes a controller (pg. 4, par. [0040] and Fig. 4A, element 410; i.e. a computing system, “… computing system 410 including an analysis engine 416. The computing system 410 includes at least one processor 411 having an associated memory 412, and a display device 418.”) and a storage (pg. 4, par. [0040] and [0042] and Fig. 4A, element 412; i.e. a memory and [0040]: “… computing system 410 including an analysis engine 416. The computing system 410 includes at least one processor 411 having an associated memory 412, and a display device 418.” and [0042]: “The analysis engine 416 as shown may comprise instructions stored in memory 412 and executed by one or more processors 411.”),
the storage (Fig. 4A, element 412; i.e. the memory) holds production plant model data related to a model of one or more production facilities in a cyberspace of a production plant and actual machine data obtained by actually measuring one or more production facilities disposed in an actual space of the production plant (pg. 2, par. [0026], pg. 4, par. [0041] and [0045], pg. 5, par. [0047]; i.e. [0041]: “The computing system 410 generally comprises one or more computing devices, such as one or more servers (e.g., a cloud computing platform) configured to receive operational data and to determine one or more tasks. The analysis engine 416 may be configured to receive, from one or more sensors or platforms associated with the plant 470, operational data, such as sensor measurements.” and [0047]: “The external servers 450 may include memory to be configured to store operational data and/or information used to determine operational data.”), and
the adjustment support method includes
a procedure of calculating a difference between the production plant model data and the actual machine data by the controller (pg. 4, par. [0043], pg. 6, par. [0065], and pg. 7, par. [0072]; i.e. [0043]: “The analysis engine 416 processes and/or analyzes operational data. For example, the analysis engine 416 may be configured to execute code that compares operational data to threshold values and/or predetermined ranges. Machine learning algorithms may be used to process and/or interpret the operational data. For example, the analysis engine 416 may store and use historical operational data to teach a machine-learning algorithm acceptable ranges for operational data, and new operational data may be input into the machine learning algorithm to determine if an undesirable plant condition exists.”; [0065]: “For example, asset health and/or status may comprise a warning and/or alert that an amount of vibration of a particular asset (e.g., a pipe) has exceeded a threshold.”; and [0072]: “Analysis of operational data may comprise the use of a model of the plant. All or portions of the operational data may be used to model the plant, e.g., using a software simulation, and simulated plant values may be compared to actual values in the operational data.”),
upon determination that the difference exists on a basis of a result of calculating the difference, a procedure of creating, by the controller, 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 (pg. 7, par. [0073]; i.e. “In step 504, equipment issues are determined. In step 505, recommendations to address process issues or equipment issues are determined, which may be determined based on the analysis of the operational data. A recommendation may include one or more tasks, which may correspond to one or more actions performed with respect to the plant.”), and
a procedure of outputting, by the controller, the one or more adjustment plans having been created (pg. 7, par. [0080]; i.e. “The third column may include one or more recommendations for resolving one or more process issues and/or one or more asset issues. The graphical user interface 600 may visually depict one or more links between the process issues, asset issues, and/or recommendations.”).
Not explicitly taught is a production line.
However Paul, in analogous an operation planning (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teach the missing limitation of a production line (pgs. 2-3, par. [0041]; i.e. “… if a manufacturing plan is generated by the operation planning system, the operating devices 2a to 2d can be production lines, various manufacturing devices, plants and factories.”) for the purpose of determining an operation plan that satisfies a constraint on a system (pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Laycock to include the addition of the limitation of a production line to advantageously enable efficient generation of operations plans with a shorter time period (Paul: pg. 1, par. [0004]).
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, modeling a system, and controlling a system.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0253954 A1 discloses post-processing heuristics for optimal production scheduling for process manufacturing.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0414582 A1 discloses a schedule change apparatus includes a change model creation section, a schedule creation section, a schedule change evaluation indicator creation section, a production simulator, and a control section.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0004373 A1 discloses an automated and autonomous control system utilizing digital modeling.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0013211 A1 discloses automatically and efficiently searching for a facility control parameter.
U.S Patent No. 8,219,437 B2 discloses systems and methods for constructing plans that can be executed in a production plant to achieve one or more production goals while concurrently facilitating diagnostic information gain.
U.S. Patent No. 11,526,823 B1 discloses scheduling actions among a group of robots or other devices.
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
Prosecution Insights