DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed on July 21, 2025, has been entered. The examiner
acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 17-18, no cancellation of claims, and no new claims.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues that any abstract ideas from Step 2A are integrated into a practical application and under Step 2B qualifies as “significantly more.” Applicant cites “manage a received order.” Examiner notes that “managing” is not described in the claims, but the specification cites order management information [0140], status of each of the [ ] work processes [ ] is managed for each order, [0057], and an “order managed” by the order management unit, [0061], [ ] in which a status of at least one work process [ ], in the order management information illustrated in Figs. 10 and 11, each comprise information processing. Although the calculations claimed appear to provide useful information, the function of information processing is not considered a practical application.
The Examiner also notes that the various activities cited in the claims describe the system observing worker task movements, referencing them against a previously captured database of worker actions, synchronize process steps and compare timing to provide predictions for task completion times. Although this may be useful, in its simplest form, the processor performs a database table lookup to cross reference progress on the current task against historical task data. This fits into the category of “apply it,” or applying a well-understood, routine, or conventional activity to a processor, which does not qualify as significantly more. Thus, the Examiner rejects the argument that the abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application and the request for reconsideration and allowance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is denied.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 17-18, provide additional detail on the claimed process but are overcome with the previously cited prior art. Applicant’s arguments that each and every feature of the claim is not disclosed in the cited references is not compelling and the Examiner concludes that prior are provides a reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention and features, and the request for reconsideration and allowance under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is denied.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-18 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-18 are directed to a process (method), and a machine (system), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-18 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of determining the waiting time until an ordered product and/or service is received.
Claim 17 discloses a method, comprising:
A waiting time prediction method comprising:
acquiring an image in which a workspace of a worker in a store that provides a product or a service is captured; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
determine which work process is performed by the worker at a point in time at which the image is captured, based on the image; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions), and
compute a waiting time until a product or a service in the store is provided, based on a determination result of the work process; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions),
wherein the waiting time prediction method further comprises:
managing a received order, (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
classify, for the received order, work processes into an executed work process, an
executing work process, and an unexecuted work process, based on the determination result of which work process is performed by the worker at a plurality of points in time at which the image is captured, (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
computing the waiting time based on time required for the executing work process
and the unexecuted work process, and updating the waiting time, and outputting the updating waiting time, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions).
Additional limitations employ the method to receive an order, order content for an order and compute waiting time based on order management information, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions- claim 2), to compute a remaining time required for processing the order during processing, compute a remaining time for processing the order not processed by the worker, and compute, as the waiting time, a total of a remaining time required for processing of the order during the processing and a remaining time required for processing of the order that is not processed, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions - claim 3), compute a remaining time required for processing of the order during processing based on a determination result of the work process, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions - claim 4), determining the work process being executed and a remaining time for the work process that is not executed, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions – claim 5), compute an elapsed time for the work process being executed based on a history of results of the work process and a remaining time required for the process being executed based on the elapsed time, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions – claim 6), compute as remaining time for the work process being executed, a value by subtracting the elapsed time from a predetermined standard time for each of the work processes, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions – claim 7), compute a waiting time for the process that is not executed based on a standard time required for each of the work processes, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions – claim 8), compute a remaining time required for processing the order that is not processed based on a standard time required for each of the work processes, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions – claim 9), where the standard time is determined for each salesclerk, determining which salesclerk is the worker and determining the standard time based on the result of the worker, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions – claim 10), compute performance of a time required for each of the work processes by each salesclerk, based on a history of a determination result of the work process, and compute the standard time for each salesclerk, based on the performance, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions – claim 11), compute an average value of the performance as a standard time, a remaining time for the work process being executed, compute remaining time by subtracting elapsed time from the standard time, and compute a remaining time by subtracting the elapsed time from the maximum value of the performance when the elapsed time exceeds the standard time, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions – claim 12), output delay information when elapsed time exceeds the standard time, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions – claim 13), determine which salesclerk works as the worker based on the image or based on shift information, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions – claim 14), acquire temporary order information indicating a product or a service, and compute, as a temporary waiting time until a product or a service indicated by the temporary order information is provided, a total of a time required for providing a product or a service indicated by the temporary order information, and the waiting time, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions – claim 15), and determine which salesclerk is the worker and compute waiting time based on the determination result of the worker, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, following rules or instructions – claim 16).
Claims 1 and 18 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified in claims 2-17. Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-18 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-18 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to execute the method, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-18 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-18 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Ozawa, (JP 2018116663 A1), hereafter Ozawa, “Waiting Time Prediction Device and Program, in view of Kitazumi, (WO 2022004189 A1), hereafter Kitazumi, “Work Evaluation Device and Work Evaluation Method,” in further view of Kishida, (JP 2008003781 A), hereafter Kishida, “Operation Monitoring System,” in further view of Ogawa, (JP 2012164076 A), hereafter Ogawa, “Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Device and Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Method,” in further view of Cadambi, (US 20140208327 A1), hereafter Cadambi, “Method for Simultaneous Scheduling of Processes and Offloading Computation on Many Core Co-processors.”
Regarding Claim 1, A waiting time prediction system comprising:
at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; Ozawa teaches, (The storage unit 21 includes a ROM (Read Only Memory), a RAM (Random Access Memory), and the like. and
at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions (The control unit 20 of the waiting time prediction apparatus 2 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit), an interface, and the like, [p. 4]), to:
acquire an image in which a workspace of a worker in a store that provides a product or
a service is captured; Ozawa does not teach, Kitazumi teaches, (An image acquisition step (S500) for acquiring an image of an operator performing the work of grasping a component and attaching the component to a work-in-process, and an image acquisition step (S500), [p.11]).
Ozawa and Kitazumi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the image capture techniques of Kitazumi to determine with high accuracy whether or not the work is being performed correctly, Kitazumi, [p. 2],
determine which work process is performed by the worker at a point in time at which
the image is captured, based on the image; Ozawa does not teach, Kishida teaches, (video information regarding the worker's work is acquired by the work information acquisition device. Then, using the work information acquired by the work information acquisition device by the identification device, the work content of the worker in the work information is determined in any work process of the reference work in the reference work information that is predetermined as an appropriate work, [p.3]),
Ozawa and Kishida are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the process determination techniques of Kishida to prevent mistakes and omissions in the work, Kishida, [p.2].
and
compute a waiting time until a product or a service in the store is provided, based on a
determination result of the work process, Ozawa does not teach, Ogawa teaches, (A predictive waiting time evaluation device 1 acquires a processing condition first (S601). Then a reference time is set for actual result data and a predictive medical examination waiting time is calculated as prediction data (S602), Ogawa, [Abstract]).
Ozawa and Ogawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the product or service delivery calculations of Ogawa to calculate the probability that the actual value of service waiting time by a user deviates from the predicted value, and reduce the irritation of the user waiting for the service, Ogawa, [p. 2].
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more
instructions to:
manage a received order, Cadambi teaches, (Fig. 5 shows the scheduling method with a new event monitor which triggers the scheduling cycle, the method determines urgencies for all elements in the process or offload list, [0144]),
classify, for the received order, work processes into an executed work process, an
executing work process, and an unexecuted work process, based on the determination result of which work process is performed by the worker at a plurality of points in time at which the image is captured, (and sorts the list based on urgency (urgency is any function of priority, age, waiting time, QoS and credits), [0144]),
compute the waiting time based on time required for the executing work process, Cadambi teaches, (owning processes are updated based on how long the offload took to actually execute. The process records the actual execution time of O. [0145].
and the unexecuted work process, (Urgency function, which determines [0137],The amount of time the processor offload has been waiting to execute since it arrived [0141]).
and update, in real time, the waiting time, (For each task in flight, it finds the processing time remaining by subtracting the time the task has already executed from the user-provided total processing time. [0102]and output the updated waiting time, (owning
processes are updated based on how long the offload took to actually execute, [0145], and when a node completes a task, it reports the actual processing time of the task.
Ozawa and Cadambi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the computations of Cadambi to calculate the estimated completion time for task t, [0102]).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected for reasons corresponding to those of claim 1. Claim 17 is the method that claim 1 implements with hardware components that define the system. Claim 18 also executes the method of claim 1 but with the addition of a non-transitory medium storing a program causing a computer to execute the method of claim 1. Ozawa teaches, (The program used in the above embodiment can be provided by being recorded on a computer-readable recording medium such as a CD-ROM, Ozawa, [p.12]).
Regarding claim 2, The waiting time prediction system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
manage order management information indicating a received order before provision and an order content of each of the orders, Ozawa does not teach, Kishida teaches, (the identification device uses the predetermined reference information displayed on the video display device and / or output from the audio output device to be referred to by the worker in the work. Further comprising a function of automatically identifying whether or not the work of each of the reference work is consistent with the work in each work step of the reference work, Kishida, [p.3-4]).
Ozawa and Kishida are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the work identification techniques of Kishida to automatically checking a worker's work and thus preventing occurrence of an accident due to human factors, Kishida, [p.2].
and compute the waiting time, based on the order management information, Ozawa does not teach, Ogawa teaches, (when a new patient is accepted or when a patient's examination is completed, a predicted value of the diagnosis start time and waiting time of each patient is calculated, Ogawa, [p.3]).
Ozawa and Ogawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the product or service delivery calculations of Ogawa to calculate the probability that the actual value of service waiting time by a user deviates from the predicted value [ ] and notify the user of the probability, Ogawa, [p.2].
Regarding claim 3, The waiting time prediction system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
compute a remaining time required by the worker for processing of the order during processing, Ozawa does not teach, Cadambi teaches, (the node scheduler computes an estimated completion time for the task by examining all tasks currently executing [ ]. For each task in flight, it finds the processing time remaining by subtracting the time the task has already executed from the user-provided total processing time, [0102]).
compute a remaining time required for processing of the order that is not processed, by the worker, (For each task in the pending task list, it aggregates the user- provided processing times, [0102]),
and compute, as the waiting time, a total of a remaining time required for processing of the order during the processing and a remaining time required for processing of the order that is not processed, (For each task in flight, it finds the processing time remaining by subtracting the time the task has already executed from the user-provided total processing time. For each task in the pending task list, it aggregates the user-provided processing times. The estimated completion time for task t, is the sum of the remaining execution times for tasks in flight, the aggregated processing times for pending tasks, and the estimated processing time of t.sub.ij. For node n: est.sub.ij.sup.n=remaining time for tasks in flight+aggregated processing times for pendingtasks+p.sub.ij, [0102]).
Ozawa and Cadambi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the computations of Cadambi to calculate the estimated completion time for task t, [0102]).
Regarding claim 4, The waiting time prediction system according to claim 3, wherein
the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to compute a remaining time required for processing of the order during the processing, based on a determination result of the work process, Note specification [0052] indicating determination results as the order management unit change from an “unexecuted” status to an “executing” status, and “executing” status and when the work process is not indicated by a subsequent determination result by the work process determination unit 12, the order management unit 14 can change the status of the work process from the “executing” status to an “executed” status.
Ozawa teaches, (the time when the response to the subject 60 is started (hereinafter also referred to as “response start time”) [, see application specification [0052]], and the time when the response to the subject 60 is ended (hereinafter referred to as “response end time”). Are registered in association with the window ID. In addition, the corresponding time obtained from the time difference between the corresponding start time and the corresponding end time is registered in association with the window ID corresponding to the target person 60, Ozawa, [p.4]).
Regarding claim 15, The waiting time prediction system according to claim 2,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: acquire temporary order information indicating a product or a service, Ozawa does not teach, Kishida teaches, (the identification device uses the predetermined reference information displayed on the video display device and / or output from the audio output device to be referred to by the worker in the work. Further comprising a function of automatically identifying whether or not the work of each of the reference work is consistent with the work in each work step of the reference work, Kishida, [p.3-4]).
Ozawa and Kishida are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the work identification techniques of Kishida to automatically checking a worker's work and thus preventing occurrence of an accident due to human factors, Kishida, [p.2].
and
compute, as a temporary waiting time until a product or a service indicated by the temporary order information is provided, a total of a time required for providing a product or a service indicated by the temporary order information, and the waiting time, Ogawa teaches, (A predictive waiting time evaluation device 1 acquires a processing condition first (S601). Then a reference time is set for actual result data and a predictive medical examination waiting time is calculated as prediction data (S602), Ogawa, [Abstract].
Ozawa and Ogawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the product or service delivery calculations of Ogawa to calculate the probability that the actual value of service waiting time by a user deviates from the predicted value, and reduce the irritation of the user waiting for the service, Ogawa, [p. 2].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Ozawa, (JP 2018116663 A1), hereafter Ozawa, “Waiting Time Prediction Device and Program, in view of Kitazumi, (WO 2022004189 A1), hereafter Kitazumi, “Work Evaluation Device and Work Evaluation Method,” in further view of Kishida, (JP 2008003781 A), hereafter Kishida, “Operation Monitoring System,” in further view of Ogawa, (JP 2012164076 A), hereafter Ogawa, “Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Device and Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Method,” in further view of Cadambi, (US 20140208327 A1), hereafter Cadambi, “Method for Simultaneous Scheduling of Processes and Offloading Computation on Many Core Co-processors,” in further view of Anderson, (US 6694009 B1), hereafter Anderson, “Estimation of a Work Item’s Wait-Time from the Present Stages of Processing of Preceding Work items.”
Regarding claim 5, The waiting time prediction system according to claim 4,
wherein execution of one or a plurality of pieces of work is requested in processing of each of the orders, Anderson teaches, (When an agent 25 receives a call for processing and identifies the other party to the call as a new customer, agent 25 presses "New" key 17. [3:47-49]),
wherein each piece of the work is formed of one or a plurality of the work processes, (When an agent 25 receives a call for processing and identifies the other party to the call as an existing customer, agent 25 presses "Existing" key 18. And when an agent 25 completes interacting with a call and goes into an after-call wrap-up state, agent 25 presses "Wrap-up" key 19. [3:49-54]), and
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
determine the work process being currently executed and the work process that is not executed in processing of the order during the processing, (obtaining information about a plurality of items that are presently being processed, using the obtained information to estimate times to completion of processing (e.g., either full completion, or completion of a particular processing task or step) of those items and then using those estimated times to predict the wait times of that plurality of the items that are waiting to be processed, [2:4-10])
and
compute, as a remaining time required for processing of the order during the processing, a total of a remaining time required for the determined work process being currently executed and a remaining time required for the determined work process that is not executed, (the use of the estimated times-to-processing-completion as predictors of wait times of waiting items illustratively involves applying the obtained information about the items that are presently being processed to historical information about previously-processed items to estimate when the resources will become available to process the other items, and then using the estimated times as predicted wait times, either directly or after adjusting the estimated times by using the historical information about waiting times of the previously-processed items, [2:30-40]).
Ozawa and Anderson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the additional data points for prediction of wait times of Anderson to improve the accuracy of wait-time predictions, [1:64-65]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Ozawa, (JP 2018116663 A1), hereafter Ozawa, “Waiting Time Prediction Device and Program, in view of Kitazumi, (WO 2022004189 A1), hereafter Kitazumi, “Work Evaluation Device and Work Evaluation Method,” in further view of Kishida, (JP 2008003781 A), hereafter Kishida, “Operation Monitoring System,” in further view of Ogawa, (JP 2012164076 A), hereafter Ogawa, “Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Device and Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Method,” in further view of Cadambi, (US 20140208327 A1), hereafter Cadambi, “Method for Simultaneous Scheduling of Processes and Offloading Computation on Many Core Co-processors,” in further view of Anderson, (US 6694009 B1), hereafter Anderson, “Estimation of a Work Item’s Wait-Time from the Present Stages of Processing of Preceding Work items,” in further view of Morrison, (KR 20130081990 A), hereafter Morrison, “ Customer Terminal for Calculating and Displaying Waiting Time and Waiting Time Prediction System.”
Regarding claim 6, The waiting time prediction system according to claim 5,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to compute an elapsed time being a time that has been required for the determined work process being currently executed, Ozawa does not teach, Morrison teaches, (the waiting time prediction unit 122 to estimate the waiting time in consideration of the waiting time of the other users, the standby It may include a timer 123 for counting the elapsed time, Morrison, [p.3]),
based on a history of a determination result of the work process, and compute a remaining time required for the determined work process being currently executed, based on the elapsed time, (the waiting time prediction unit 122 to estimate the waiting time in consideration of the waiting time of the other users, the standby It may include a timer 123 for counting the elapsed time, the standby information providing unit 124 for displaying at least one of the expected waiting time, the waiting elapsed time, the number of waiting people, Morrison, [p.3]).
Ozawa and Morrison are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the user terminal of Morrison, to enable a user to accurately grasp a current waiting situation, Morrison, [Abstract].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Ozawa, (JP 2018116663 A1), hereafter Ozawa, “Waiting Time Prediction Device and Program, in view of Kitazumi, (WO 2022004189 A1), hereafter Kitazumi, “Work Evaluation Device and Work Evaluation Method,” in further view of Kishida, (JP 2008003781 A), hereafter Kishida, “Operation Monitoring System,” in further view of Ogawa, (JP 2012164076 A), hereafter Ogawa, “Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Device and Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Method,” in further view of Cadambi, (US 20140208327 A1), hereafter Cadambi, “Method for Simultaneous Scheduling of Processes and Offloading Computation on Many Core Co-processors,” in further view of Anderson, (US 6694009 B1), hereafter Anderson, “Estimation of a Work Item’s Wait-Time from the Present Stages of Processing of Preceding Work items,” in further view of Morrison, (KR 20130081990 A), hereafter Morrison, “ Customer Terminal for Calculating and Displaying Waiting Time and Waiting Time Prediction System” in further view of Ogiso, (JP 2014191603 A), hereafter Ogiso, “Workflow Control Program, Device, and Method.”
Regarding claim 7, The waiting time prediction system according to claim 6,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to compute, as a remaining time required for the determined work process being currently executed, a value acquired by subtracting the elapsed time from a predetermined standard time required for each of the work processes, Ozawa does not teach, Ogiso teaches, (further, the exclusive control unit 110 calculates the remaining time until the scheduled completion time from the difference between the scheduled completion time of the workflow and the current time. Here, the exclusive control unit 110 may calculate the scheduled completion time of the workflow based on the time taken to complete each operation component registered in advance. Further, the exclusive control unit 110 may use the completion time acquired from the history information of the workflow executed in the past (for example, the exclusive acquisition history table 136) as the scheduled completion time, Ogiso, [p.27]).
Ozawa and Ogiso are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the control units for remaining time of Ogiso to calculate the execution priority, [p.27].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Ozawa, (JP 2018116663 A1), hereafter Ozawa, “Waiting Time Prediction Device and Program, in view of Kitazumi, (WO 2022004189 A1), hereafter Kitazumi, “Work Evaluation Device and Work Evaluation Method,” in further view of Kishida, (JP 2008003781 A), hereafter Kishida, “Operation Monitoring System,” in further view of Ogawa, (JP 2012164076 A), hereafter Ogawa, “Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Device and Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Method,” in further view of Anderson, (US 6694009 B1), hereafter Anderson, “Estimation of a Work Item’s Wait-Time from the Present Stages of Processing of Preceding Work items,” in further view of Nagao, (US 20180030285 A1), hereafter Nagao, “Apparatus and Method for Processing Information and Program for the Same.”
Regarding claim 8, The waiting time prediction system according to claim 5,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to
compute a remaining time required for the determined work process that is not executed, based on a predetermined standard time required for each of the work processes. Ozawa does not tech, Nagao teaches, (the second determination unit determines waiting time of each object in the waiting line based on the estimated time when each object enters the waiting line and the estimated time when each object exits the waiting line, [0006]).
Ozawa and Nagao are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the queue waiting times of Nagao to improve user convenience, [0049].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Ozawa, (JP 2018116663 A1), hereafter Ozawa, “Waiting Time Prediction Device and Program, in view of Kitazumi, (WO 2022004189 A1), hereafter Kitazumi, “Work Evaluation Device and Work Evaluation Method,” in further view of Kishida, (JP 2008003781 A), hereafter Kishida, “Operation Monitoring System,” in further view of Ogawa, (JP 2012164076 A), hereafter Ogawa, “Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Device and Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Method,” in further view of Cadambi, (US 20140208327 A1), hereafter Cadambi, “Method for Simultaneous Scheduling of Processes and Offloading Computation on Many Core Co-processors,” in further view of Nagao, (US 20180030285 A1), hereafter Nagao, “Apparatus and Method for Processing Information and Program for the Same.”
Regarding claim 9, The waiting time prediction system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to compute a remaining time required for processing of the order that is not processed, based on a predetermined standard time required for each of the work processes. Ozawa does not tech, Nagao teaches, (the second determination unit determines waiting time of each object in the waiting line based on the estimated time when each object enters the waiting line and the estimated time when each object exits the waiting line, [0006]).
Ozawa and Nagao are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the queue waiting times of Nagao to improve user convenience, [0049].
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Ozawa, (JP 2018116663 A1), hereafter Ozawa, “Waiting Time Prediction Device and Program, in view of Kitazumi, (WO 2022004189 A1), hereafter Kitazumi, “Work Evaluation Device and Work Evaluation Method,” in further view of Kishida, (JP 2008003781 A), hereafter Kishida, “Operation Monitoring System,” in further view of Ogawa, (JP 2012164076 A), hereafter Ogawa, “Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Device and Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Method,” in further view of Anderson, (US 6694009 B1), hereafter Anderson, “Estimation of a Work Item’s Wait-Time from the Present Stages of Processing of Preceding Work items, in further view of Morrison, (KR 20130081990 A), hereafter Morrison, “ Customer Terminal for Calculating and Displaying Waiting Time and Waiting Time Prediction System,” in further view of Ogiso, (JP 2014191603 A), hereafter Ogiso, “Workflow Control Program Device and Method,” in further view of Minowa, (JP2007141039 A), hereafter Minowa, “Operation Management System, Operation Managing Method, and Program Thereof.”
Regarding claim 10, The waiting time prediction system according to claim 7, wherein the standard time is determined for each salesclerk, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
determine which salesclerk is the worker, and
determine the standard time, based on a determination result of the worker, Ozawa does not teach, Minowa teaches, (the information for identifying the worker, the start time and the completion time of the work are automatically recorded in the database when the web screen is operated, and the work is input by the web screen operation, and statistically calculate the average work time and the average number of work redoes for each type of office work and each worker based on the automatically collected work time and the number of redo work, Minowa, [p.2]).
Ozawa and Minowa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the individual worker performance times of Minowa to improve work efficiency, [p.1].
Regarding claim 11, The waiting time prediction system according to claim 10,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to compute performance of a time required for each of the work processes by each salesclerk, based on a history of a determination result of the work process, and compute the standard time for each salesclerk, based on the performance, Ozawa does not teach, Minowa teaches, (the worker status DB 121 includes a worker CD 121a (worker's user ID), an office work type 121b (a code indicating the type of work such as order slip issuance and estimate creation), and a status 121c (worker is “free”, “ Code indicating which state is “requesting”, “working”, “resting”), work start time 121d (work start time (automatically recorded during operation)), expected completion time 121e (work start time) + Automatically calculated by the average work time of the worker). Here, the parentheses indicate the meaning of each item. The figure also shows their meanings and specific legends. MINOWA p5
Ozawa and Minowa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the individual worker performance times of Minowa to improve work efficiency, [p.1].
Regarding claim 12, The waiting time prediction system according to claim 11,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
compute an average value of the performance as the standard time, Ozawa does not teach, Minowa teaches, (statistically calculate the average work time and the average number of work redoes for each type of office work and each worker based on the automatically collected work time and the number of redo work, [p.2]),
Ozawa and Minowa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the individual worker performance factors of Minowa to improve work efficiency, [p.1].
compute, as a remaining time required for the determined work process being currently executed, a value acquired by subtracting the elapsed time from the predetermined standard time required for each of the work processes, Ozawa does not teach, Cadambi teaches, (the node scheduler computes an estimated completion time for the task by examining all tasks currently executing, and all tasks in the pending task list. for each task in flight, it finds the processing time remaining by subtracting the time the task has already executed from the user-provided total processing time, [0102]),
and
compute, as a remaining time required for the determined work process being currently executed, a value acquired by subtracting the elapsed time from a maximum value of the performance when the elapsed time exceeds the standard time (the processing time remaining by subtracting the time the task has already executed from the user-provided total processing time. For each task in the pending task list, it aggregates the user-provided processing times. The estimated completion time for task t, is the sum of the remaining execution times for tasks in flight, the aggregated processing times for pending tasks, and the estimated processing time of t.sub.ij, [0102]).
Ozawa and Cadambi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the computations of Cadambi to calculate the estimated completion time for task t, the sum of the remaining execution times for task in flight, [0102]).
Regarding claim 13, The waiting time prediction system according to claim 12,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to output delay information indicating a delay of work when the elapsed time exceeds the standard time, Ozawa does not teach, Ogawa teaches, (the predicted waiting time evaluation apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention calculates the probability that the actual value of service waiting time by a user deviates from the predicted value from the past predicted value and actual value data, and notifies the user of the probability, [p.2]).
Ozawa and Ogawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the output of delay information of Ogawa to reduce the irritation of the user waiting for the service, Ogawa, [p. 2].
Regarding claim 14, The waiting time prediction system according to claim 10,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine which salesclerk works as the worker, based on the image or based on shift information, Ozawa does not teach, Minowa teaches, (according to the first aspect of the present invention, the information for identifying the worker, the start time and the completion time of the work are automatically recorded in the database when the web screen is operated, and the work is input by the web screen operation, Minowa, [p.2]).
Ozawa and Minowa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of process evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waiting time prediction techniques of Ozawa with the automatic recording of individual worker performance times of Minowa to improve work efficiency, [p.1].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Ozawa, (JP 2018116663 A1), hereafter Ozawa, “Waiting Time Prediction Device and Program, in view of Kitazumi, (WO 2022004189 A1), hereafter Kitazumi, “Work Evaluation Device and Work Evaluation Method,” in further view of Kishida, (JP 2008003781 A), hereafter Kishida, “Operation Monitoring System,” in further view of Ogawa, (JP 2012164076 A), hereafter Ogawa, “Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Device and Predictive Waiting Time Evaluation Method,” in further view of Minowa, (JP2007141039 A), hereafter Minowa, “Operation Management System, Operation Managing Method, and Program Thereof.”
Regarding claim 16, The waiting time prediction system according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
determine which salesclerk is the worker, Ozawa does not teach, Minowa teaches, (the information for identifying the worker, the start time and the completion time of the work are automatically recorded i