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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 18/241,789, filed on September 01, 2023. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection dated June 12, 2025, Applicant on September 12, 2025 amended claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8-12 and cancelled claims 2 and 4. Claims 1, 3 and 5-12 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections of claims 6, 7 and 12 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicants amendments and remarks. New 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been applied to amended claims 1, 5 and 8-12.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are hereby amended pursuant to Applicants amendments and arguments to claim 1. Updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been applied to amended claims 3, 6 and 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed September 12, 2025 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks regarding the pending rejections will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed September 12, 2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states reconsideration of the rejection is requested at Step 2A Prong 1 because like with page 4 of the USPTO's Memorandum of August 4, 2025 to certain technology centers, including that in which the current application is being examined, the claims do not MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1) "recite"2 the rejection's alleged abstract idea, and the rejection's assertions to the contrary represent an examination of the claims in excess of a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims, which is improper (see p. 11-12, Applicant Remarks).
And with MPEP 2106(II) and 2111 in mind, the rejection's Step 2A Prong 1 assertions, that examined claim features are directed to "certain methods of organizing human activity" and to "mental processes", are in contrast to the requirement that a BRI "must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings", since the specification does not indicate the claimed features represent any of organizing of human activity at all, much less within the meaning of "certain", and does not indicate that the claim features represent any performance in the human mind or with pen and paper - nor would that be what one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret from the claims.
See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) indicating that the term "certain" is supposed to be a reminder that not all "methods of organizing human activity" should be found within that subgrouping, and viewing the examples of what MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) suggests to be within that subgrouping, the claims here are clearly dissimilar and do not even recite any "organizing human activity" much less the "certain" activity.
And about mental processes, nothing in the specification suggests that what is claimed is something being done in the human mind or with pen and paper, and with that inconsistency to the specification, it seems clear that the rejection exceeded the MPEP 2106(11) boundary of considering the claims by their BRI at Step 2A Prong 1. Or in other words, it is not clear how the specification was understood to support a BRI of the claims without the involved computer technology.
Therefore, although it may sometimes be appropriate to consider claims sans computer components for the purpose of a Step 2A Prong 1 analysis, that consideration sans computer components must, according to MPEP 2106(II), be within a BRI of the claim as a whole, where, according to MPEP 2111, the BRI must, inter alia be consistent with the specification. But here, the rejection's Step 2A Prong 1 conclusion is not consistent with the specification, and so, the rejection exceeded a BRI and should be withdrawn at Step 2A Prong 1 for that reason.
Therefore, in summary of this traversal of the rejection's Step 2A Prong 1 analysis, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection should be withdrawn as i) exceeding a BRI, as ii) being inconsistent with USPTO's guidance and therefore arbitrary and capricious, and iii) as not being, in terms of the August 4, 2025 Memorandum, "more likely than not" appropriate. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the rejection be withdrawn.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types; see MPEP 2106.04(a). Examiner notes the important issue is whether the concept (e.g., the idea of generating advice information for assigning personnel to a delayed process) is abstract (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g. managing relationships or interactions and mental processes, etc.) - not whether the exact fact-pattern matches the particulars of previous court decisions. For example, in Planet Bingo, which dealt with the abstract idea of managing a game of bingo, the Federal circuit used Bilski and Alice to support the asserted abstract idea. Specifically the aspect of bingo game management which includes “solv[ing] a tampering problem and also minimiz[ing] other security risks” during bingo ticket purchases was determined to be similar to the abstract ideas of “risk hedging” during “consumer transactions,” (Bilski) and “mitigating settlement risk” in “financial transactions,” (Alice) that the Supreme Court found ineligible. Clearly, the fact patterns in Planet Bingo compared to Bilski and Alice were different, but the abstract concepts were similar. Thus, Examiner finds Applicants aforementioned remarks are not persuasive and maintains the amended claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A – Prong One.
Furthermore, Examiner finds the pending claims constitute methods that mimic human thought processes that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. For example, generate, based on a result of image analysis, situation information indicating a situation of each of a plurality of processes executed by a plurality of workers; extract a delayed process progress of which is delayed from target progress from among a plurality of the processes, based on the situation information; estimate a cause of a delay in progress of the delayed process, based on the situation information; and generate, based on progress of the process other than the delayed process and a cause of a delay in progress of the delayed process, advice information about a method for assigning personnel to a plurality of the processes; based both on the delayed process being extracted and on the situation information, attempt to extract an accelerated process, the progress of which is ahead of the target progress by at least a standard, which represents a predetermined value, from among the plurality of processes; based on the accelerated process being extracted, generate the advice information as indicating an assistance to the delayed process by a first worker, of the plurality of workers, in the accelerated process; and based on the accelerated process being determined as not yet being extracted, generate the advice information as indicating an exchange of an assignment of a second worker, of the plurality of workers, to the delayed process for an assignment of a third worker, of the plurality of workers, to one of the plurality of processes other than the delayed process constitute at least observations, evaluations and judgement (as well as opinion) that can be performed by a human mentally, thus reciting an abstract idea. Examiner maintains, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states see page 4 of the August 4, 2025 Memorandum noting that: "[a]n important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology or a technical field is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the ides of a solution or outcome".
And in that light, the claim features are clearly more "particular" than the rejection's alleged abstract ideas of "methods based on managing relationships or interactions between people" and "methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements [sic] and/or opinion that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper" as noted bridging pages 3 and 4 of the Office Action.
Similarly, see also MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of
a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong
Two indicating that (emphasis added) (see p. 14-15, Applicant Remarks).
And with those MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) criteria in mind in addition to the notes at page 4 of the August 4, 2025 Memorandum, see the background and summary sections of the Applicant's specification describing technical problems in which attempts at various workflow related technology was attempted but was nonetheless found deficient for, as at originally-filed paragraphs [0007] and [0008] not appropriately accounting for a situation actually occurring during work, such as a delay. And see how the claims clearly reflect an improvement with at least the "accelerated process" features of claim 1.
As such, even if the claims were still found to include features directed to an abstract idea, arguendo, the claims, at least as presently presented, satisfy the criteria for patent eligibility set out in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and also now at page 4 of the August 4, 2025 Memorandum. That is, the specification describes a problem and solution that is reflected in the claims, and the claims are clearly more particular that the rejection's noted abstract idea. These points are respectfully submitted in contradiction to the rejection's comments at pages 3-5 of the Office Action.
Therefore, if the rejection is still maintained at Step 2A Prong 1, then it is respectfully requested that the rejection be withdrawn at Step 2A Prong 2 as the claims at least presently represent a practical application for the reasons noted above.
And, like above in regards to the Step 2A Prong 1 analyses, even if the Examiner subjectively disagrees with the Applicant's position here at Step 2A Prong 2, the rejection still should not be said to be, in terms of the August 4, 2025 Memorandum, "more likely than not" appropriate in this regard because at least equal reasoning against the rejection is hereby presented as purportedly for the rejection by the Office Action. And as such, the rejection should not be made as indicated in that Memorandum.
Accordingly, it is requested that the rejection be withdrawn for any of the above reasons.
In response Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes the Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 Memorandum (Aug 2025) further states, in part, “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology or a technical field is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome” and then cited footnote 13, See MPEP 2106.05(a) (discussing DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), (see p. 4, August 2025 Memorandum). Examiner finds DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. discloses a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, Amdocs discloses a distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion to reduce network congestion while generating networking accounting data records, and McRO discloses methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules; see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). Examiner finds there are no similar improvements here. The functioning of the technical elements (i.e., apparatus comprising a processor configured to execute instructions stored on memory) is not being improved, instead the improvements are directed towards generating advice for worker assignments, which is a possible improvement to an existing business process (e.g., schedule/staffing management for projects) and not a technology, technological field or computer-related technology. Examiner finds the additional elements are solely used as tools to perform the instructions of the abstract idea. Examiner maintains the claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states if the rejection is maintained, then the Examiner's MPEP 2106.07(a)(II) suggested amendment to overcome the rejection is requested. MPEP 2106.07(a)(II) notes that, as part of the Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B analyses:
In the event a rejection is made, it is a best practice for the examiner to consult the specification to determine if there are elements that could be added to the claim to make it eligible. If so, the examiner should identify those elements in the Office action and suggest them as a way to overcome the rejection.
In response, Applicant has provided no detailed explanation to the configuration of the combination of additional elements nor has Applicant identified any disclosure in the claimed invention showing and/or submitting that the technology (i.e., an apparatus comprising a processor configured to execute instructions stored on memory, computer and non-transitory storage medium storing a program) used is being improved, there was a technical problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves, or the ordered combinations of the known elements is significantly more than generating advice information for assigning personnel to a delayed process. Examiner maintains the additional elements recited in the claims do not perform any unconventional functions that can be considered “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Therefore, Examiner maintains the claims recite addition elements used as tools to perform the instructions of the abstract idea without disclosing limitations that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do these elements provide meaningful limitations that transforms the judicial exception into significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Examiner currently has no suggestions that are supported by Applicant’s specification that would overcome the current § 101 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 16-18, filed September 12, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 3 and 5-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Applicant’s arguments are considered moot because they are directed to newly amended subject matter and do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for further explanation and rationale.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-10 are directed towards an apparatus, claim 11 is directed towards a method and claim 12 directed towards a non-transitory storage medium, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite generating advice information for assigning personnel to a delayed process.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, generate, based on a result of image analysis, situation information indicating a situation of each of a plurality of processes executed by a plurality of workers; extract a delayed process progress of which is delayed from target progress from among a plurality of the processes, based on the situation information; estimate a cause of a delay in progress of the delayed process, based on the situation information; and generate, based on progress of the process other than the delayed process and a cause of a delay in progress of the delayed process, advice information about a method for assigning personnel to a plurality of the processes; based both on the delayed process being extracted and on the situation information, attempt to extract an accelerated process, the progress of which is ahead of the target progress by at least a standard, which represents a predetermined value, from among the plurality of processes; based on the accelerated process being extracted, generate the advice information as indicating an assistance to the delayed process by a first worker, of the plurality of workers, in the accelerated process; and based on the accelerated process being determined as not yet being extracted, generate the advice information as indicating an exchange of an assignment of a second worker, of the plurality of workers, to the delayed process for an assignment of a third worker, of the plurality of workers, to one of the plurality of processes other than the delayed process constitutes methods based on managing relationships or interactions between people, as well as, methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of an apparatus comprising a processor configured to execute instructions stored on memory does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 11 and 12 recite certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising a processor configured to execute instructions stored on memory at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The computer recited in method claim 11 and non-transitory storage medium storing a program in claim 12 also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 11 and 12 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including an apparatus comprising a processor configured to execute instructions stored on memory, computer and non-transitory storage medium storing a program amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 3 and 5-10 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claim 1. Therefore claims 3 and 5-10 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyengar, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0374423 [hereinafter Iyengar], and further in view of
Gura, U.S. Publication No. 2008/0082389 [hereinafter Gura].
Referring to Claim 1, Iyengar teaches:
A processing apparatus comprising:
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 (Iyengar, [0035]):
generate, based on a result of image analysis, situation information indicating a situation of each of a plurality of processes executed by a plurality of workers (Iyengar, [0077]-[0078]), “…at a user may indicate heightened areas of interest or concern, actions within a process, locations within a process, that may increase or decrease the fidelity of the data analyzed… at least one data stream of sequential images and the analyzing the received data comprises defining an area of interest in an image of the sequential images…Varying the fidelity may include removing portions of data corresponding to areas of an image not under observation and/or enhancing other portions of the image that are of interest at a particular time of analysis…”; (Iyengar, [0065]), “analyzing the received data from the one or more cameras, analyzing the received data to identify inefficiency events within a process, and visualizing the identified inefficiency events”; (Iyengar, [0024]);
extract a delayed process progress of which is delayed from target progress from among a plurality of the processes, based on the situation information (Iyengar, [0044]), “data from the database may be extracted to measure statistical trends and other metrics like probability density functions of time to completion of a specific activity, percentage of time a resource (e.g. worker) spends at a working location, heat maps of movement resources, etc. Given the individual's activity's time to completion statistics, the Time to Completion Prediction Block calculates the time to complete an entire work flow consisting of many individual activities. The Delay Contribution Identification Block may compute the delay cost contributions for each block in the entire workflow”; (Iyengar, [0047]), “The process percentage 1304 may measure a process efficiency relative to the process's historical performance of time to completion of activities. The indication of a process delay or inefficiency 1310 may identify the bottleneck resources causing the delay for the given activity. The system may quantify the contribution of each resource to that bottleneck delay. The system may provide visual indication of the activity/activities that are under producing verses over producing”;
estimate a cause of a delay in progress of the delayed process, based on the situation information (Iyengar, [0085]), “… using the observation and analyzed data from the one or more cameras to distribute additional sensors. If the analysis identifies locations of inefficiency within the process… The analysis of received data may include identifying an inefficiency… The analysis of received data may include identifying a root cause of the inefficiency”; (Iyengar, [0088]), “identify a root cause of a condition within the process…”; (Iyengar, [0048]), “The resources or metrics attributing the delay may be displayed as a total delay fraction 1404 and corresponding visualization, such as a pie chart of the root causes contributing to a delay”;
generate, based on progress of the process other than the delayed process and the cause of the delay in progress of the delayed process, advice information about a method for assigning personnel to a plurality of the processes (Iyengar, [0044]), “…The Delay Contribution Identification Block may compute the delay cost contributions for each block in the entire workflow. The final delay cost computations at the end of the workflow may be propagated for each block upstream in the workflow depending on the contribution to that block to the downstream delay. Based on the cost contribution from each block, the Automated Workflow Optimization Block may rearrange the priorities of resources so as to minimize the total delay cost contribution to the workflow”; (Iyengar, [0083]), “analyze the received data and improve and/or quantify the performance of the process… analyze the detected one or more events and/or inefficiencies and/or the process delay of each segment of the process to determine an overall efficiency of the process… An improvement may be based on any desired attribute, such as reducing resources, improving process time, increasing or decreasing machine up or down time, or to get the resources, and process segments into a desired attribute configuration”; (Iyengar, [0021]), “make improvements to the efficiency of the process based on root causes identified for an identified bottleneck branch (i.e. in which one side of the branch is latent compared to another side of the branch). Exemplary embodiments may remove or reallocate wasted resources on a latent side of the bottleneck branch”; (Iyengar, [0036]; [0045]; [0086]-[0087]); and
based on the accelerated process being determined as not yet being extracted, generate the advice information as indicating an exchange of an assignment of a second worker, of the plurality of workers, to the delayed process for an assignment of a third worker, of the plurality of workers, to one of the plurality of processes other than the delayed process (Iyengar, [0087]), “an indicator may be used to identify when a resource is over or under-utilized and thus provide an indication when resources should be reallocated. If one resource is underutilized, such as a worker waiting on a part to arise, the system may be provided to indicate that the resource may move to another segment of the process that is could use assistance…”; (Iyengar, [0085]), “If the analysis identifies locations of inefficiency within the process, the distribution of sensors may be about the locations of inefficiencies. The analysis of received data may include identifying an inefficiency, wherein an inefficiency is determined by an underutilized resource because of a branch in the process with one side of the branch creating a lag compared to another side of the branch… a plurality of branches may generate data such that the analysis of the received data corresponding to a plurality of branches may be analyzed to identify a series of inefficiencies along the process at more than one branch. The system and method may be configured to generate an optimized process order in which at least one of the series of inefficiencies is reduced to improve an overall process efficiency… The input may correspond to a desired process improvement, such as to change the use of resource(s)… analyzing branch points from an end of the process toward the beginning of the process to sequentially optimize the process”.
Iyengar teaches resource reallocation for dynamic workflow optimization and/or line balancing (see par. 0023), but Iyengar does not explicitly teach:
based both on the delayed process being extracted and on the situation information, attempt to extract an accelerated process, the progress of which is ahead of the target progress by at least a standard, which represents a predetermined value, from among the plurality of processes; and
based on the accelerated process being extracted, generate the advice information as indicating an assistance to the delayed process by a first worker, of the plurality of workers, in the accelerated process.
However Gura teaches:
based both on the delayed process being extracted and on the situation information, attempt to extract an accelerated process, the progress of which is ahead of the target progress by at least a standard, which represents a predetermined value, from among the plurality of processes (Gura, [0475]), “After the loop starting at step 1634 finishes its iterations, the computing application aggregates the behind schedule values in step 1642 with respect to one or more levels that include, for instance, a summary task level, a subproject or project level, and an e2e integrated plan level. In step 1644, a macro screens the entire task list of the project and generates the behind schedule report so that of all tasks of a project, only behind schedule tasks are included (i.e., ahead of schedule tasks are filtered out) … the user analyzes the behind schedule report to identify the task or group of tasks that contribute the most to the behind schedule performance. In one embodiment, data on the behind schedule report is utilized in a Milestone Exposed process that models and predicts impacts to future activities and/or events. Additionally or alternatively, the behind schedule report and information from the Milestone Exposed process is utilized by project team members to further understand impacts and corrective actions… ”; (Gura, [0481]-[048]), “schedule performance assessment using an ahead of schedule report begins at step 1660. In optional step 1662, the computing application receives a sensitivity setting from the user. The sensitivity setting determines a required threshold level for any ahead of schedule value included in the ahead of schedule report… After the loop starting at step 1664 finishes its iterations, the computing application aggregates the ahead of schedule values in step 1672 with respect to one or more levels that include, for instance, a summary task level, a subproject or project level, and an e2e integrated plan level… the ahead of schedule report includes a view of tasks whose progress exceeds the baseline plan”; (Gura, [0462]-[0463]); and
based on the accelerated process being extracted, generate the advice information as indicating an assistance to the delayed process by a first worker, of the plurality of workers, in the accelerated process (Gura, [0486]), “the user analyzes the ahead of schedule report to identify the task or group of tasks that contribute the most to the ahead of schedule performance. The schedule performance assessment process of FIG. 16E ends at step 1678. In one embodiment, the task or group of tasks identified in step 1676 are used to identify resources that are available for reassignment to assist in recovering a behind schedule issue. For example, identified ahead of schedule tasks indicate that programmer team 1 is ahead of schedule. Common skills in programmer team 1 are temporarily reassigned to programmer team 2 to support a behind schedule recovery plan”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the reallocation of resources in Iyengar to include the acceleration and advice limitations as taught by Gura. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of generating an optimized process order in which inefficiencies are reduced to improve an overall process efficiency in Iyengar (see par. 0085) to efficiently include the results of providing a schedule performance assessment technique that quickly and reliably identifies whether or not a project has behind schedule performance problems, quickly identifies underlying root causes of schedule performance problems, and facilitates the identification and reassignment of ahead of schedule resources to support a behind schedule recovery plan (see Gura par. 0022).
Referring to Claim 5, Iyengar in view of Gura teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1. Iyengar further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
generate the advice information indicating a timing for exchanging assignments, based on progress of a task currently under execution by each of two workers the processes assigned to whom are exchanged (Iyengar, [0036]), “when an issue is identified or when resources are not optimized, a notice may be sent through visual or audial cues to reposition resources, as described herein or otherwise understood by a person of skill in the art. Any combination of cues (such as visual cues and/or audio cues) may be used. Exemplary embodiments may include system control features such that machines may be shut down to indicate the movement of personnel from one location to another”; (Iyengar, [0087]).
Referring to Claim 8, Iyengar in view of Gura teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1. Iyengar further teaches;
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
when a work time being required for the delayed process and being indicated by the situation information is greater than a reference work time and a relation between a work time being required for the delayed process when each of a plurality of other workers executes the delayed process and being indicated by past record information and the reference work time satisfies a predetermined condition, estimate an ability of a worker executing the delayed process at that point in time to be the cause of the delay in progress of the delayed process from the target progress, and the predetermined condition is a work time of each of a predetermined number or more of workers or each of workers in a predetermined ratio or greater being less than the reference work time (Iyengar, [0047]), “the resources 1308 used for the process step may be identified. Resources may include personnel, equipment, materials, or other identified metric. The time to completion 1310 may also be estimated and displayed. The probabilistic estimate of the time to complete an activity (e.g. manufacturing job), may be based on historical data. Other information may include progress percentage 1304, delay costs attributed to the process step 1306, or an indication of a process delay or inefficiency 1310, such as through color identification. The process percentage 1304 may measure a process efficiency relative to the process's historical performance of time to completion of activities. The indication of a process delay or inefficiency 1310 may identify the bottleneck resources causing the delay for the given activity. The system may quantify the contribution of each resource to that bottleneck delay. The system may provide visual indication of the activity/activities that are under producing verses over producing”; (Iyengar, [0063]-[0064]; [0083]).
Referring to Claim 9, Iyengar in view of Gura teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1. Iyengar further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
when a work time being required for the delayed process and being indicated by the situation information is greater than a reference work time and a relation between a work time being required for the delayed process when each of a plurality of other workers executes the delayed process and being indicated by past record information and the reference work time does not satisfy a predetermined condition, estimate overestimation of the target progress due to underestimation of the reference work time to be the cause of the delay in progress of the delayed process from the target progress, and the predetermined condition is a work time of each of a predetermined number or more of workers or each of workers in a predetermined ratio or greater being less than the reference work time (Iyengar, [0047]), “the resources 1308 used for the process step may be identified. Resources may include personnel, equipment, materials, or other identified metric. The time to completion 1310 may also be estimated and displayed. The probabilistic estimate of the time to complete an activity (e.g. manufacturing job), may be based on historical data. Other information may include progress percentage 1304, delay costs attributed to the process step 1306, or an indication of a process delay or inefficiency 1310, such as through color identification. The process percentage 1304 may measure a process efficiency relative to the process's historical performance of time to completion of activities. The indication of a process delay or inefficiency 1310 may identify the bottleneck resources causing the delay for the given activity. The system may quantify the contribution of each resource to that bottleneck delay. The system may provide visual indication of the activity/activities that are under producing verses over producing”; (Iyengar, [0063]-[0065]; [0083]).
Referring to Claim 10, Iyengar in view of Gura teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1. Iyengar further teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
when occurrence of a predetermined abnormality is indicated by the situation information, estimate occurrence of the predetermined abnormality to be the cause of the delay in progress of the delayed process from the target progress (Iyengar, [0085]), “… The analysis of received data may include identifying an inefficiency, wherein an inefficiency is determined by an underutilized resource because of a branch in the process with one side of the branch creating a lag compared to another side of the branch… The system and method may include receiving an input from a user and analyzing the received data to define and identify an inefficiency based on the input…”; (Iyengar, [0061]; [0063]; [0089]).
Referring to Claim 11, Iyengar teaches:
A processing method comprising, by at least one computer (Iyengar, [0067 [0035]):
Claim 11 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 1, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Referring to Claim 12, Iyengar teaches:
A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to (Iyengar, [0035]):
Claim 12 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 1, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claims 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyengar, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0374423 [hereinafter Iyengar], in view of Gura, U.S. Publication No. 2008/0082389 [hereinafter Gura], and further in view of Idomoto et al., U.S. Publication No. 2024/0012396 [hereinafter Idomoto].
Referring to Claim 3, Iyengar in view of Gura teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1. Iyengar further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
determine, based on the situation information indicating a situation of the delayed process, a continuation time during which the first worker in the accelerated process continues the assistance to the delayed process (Iyengar, [0023]), “visual indications of activities or branches that are under producing verses over producing. Such visualization and assessment of activities may be in real time and dynamic such that embodiments described herein can provide feedback to personnel and can redirect activities in real time in response to a dynamic situation… Benefits of resource reallocation may therefore be achieved without additional supervision. Exemplary embodiments may therefore be used for dynamic workflow optimization and/or line balancing”; (Iyengar, [0021]; [0049]; [0063]).
Iyengar teaches resource reallocation for dynamic workflow optimization and/or line balancing (see par. 0023), but Iyengar does not explicitly teach:
generate the advice information indicating the determined continuation time.
However Idomoto teaches:
generate the advice information indicating the determined continuation time (Idomoto, [0150]), “…the task time period was determined to be shorter than the task schedule for a task for which the task state determining section 315 has determined that the task procedure is appropriate… In this case, it is possible to propose to shorten the task time period for the next day and later from a scheduled task time period, and to distribute manpower of workers etc. to another construction site… in a case where it is determined that the task time period is longer than the task schedule, it is possible to propose to lengthen the task time period for the next day and later from the scheduled task time period, and to allocate additional manpower of workers etc.”; (Idomoto, [0151]-[0152]), “for a task for which the task state determining section 315 has determined that an error occurred in the task procedure and a task for which the task state determining section 315 has determined that the task quality is poor, it is possible to instruct readjustment of the task… it is possible to make a proposal as to the task time period as described above when the task time period is determined to be shorter or longer than the task schedule… it is possible to cause the display device 4 to function as a proposal device that proposes readjustment of a task schedule for the next day… Therefore, the display control section 318 may propose to shorten or lengthen the task time period by displaying task schedule data that reflects a longer/shorter task time period for that day and that is outputted by the second outputting section 317”; (Idomoto, [0154]), “the task inference model 322 only needs to be constructed to infer, from actual performance of a task in a predetermined task time period, a task to be carried out in a next predetermined task time period. For example, the task inference model 322 may output the task schedule data that is not limited to data for the next day but that can be data for the day after the next day or later. Further, the task inference model 322 may receive input of the actual performance data up to the time point at which the captured image is obtained, and may output task schedule data for later than the time point”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the reallocation of resources in Iyengar to include the time limitation as taught by Idomoto. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of generating an optimized process order in which inefficiencies are reduced to improve an overall process efficiency in Iyengar (see par. 0085) to efficiently include the results of improve task efficiency (see Idomoto par. 0177).
Referring to Claim 6, Iyengar in view of Gura teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 5. Iyengar teaches tracking a duration of an action within the process and using the start and end times of the action to predict a location of resources corresponding to the start and end of the action (see par. 0072), but Iyengar does not explicitly teach:
wherein a worker in the each process repeatedly executes the each process, and
the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to predict an ending timing at which a cycle of each of the processes assignments of workers to which are exchanged ends, and determine a point in time when a difference between the ending timings becomes equal to or less than a reference value as a timing for exchanging assignments.
However Idomoto teaches:
wherein a worker in the each process repeatedly executes the each process, and
the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to predict an ending timing at which a cycle of each of the processes assignments of workers to which are exchanged ends, and determine a point in time when a difference between ending timings, including the end timing, becomes equal to or less than a reference value as the timing for exchanging assignments (Idomoto, [0202]-[0205]), “a task inference model in accordance with an aspect of the present invention includes: an input layer into which actual performance data is inputted, the actual performance data indicating a relation between at least one task carried out in a predetermined task time period and a term in which the task was carried out; an output layer which outputs task schedule data that indicates a relation between at least one task in a next predetermined task time period and a term in which the task is to be carried out; and an intermediate layer in which parameters have been learned on the basis of (i) past task schedule data which indicates a relation between at least one task that was indicated as a task scheduled to be carried out… and a term in which the task was carried out, (ii) past actual performance data which indicates a relation between at least one task that was carried out in the past… and a term in which the task was carried out, and (iii) factor data that influenced the task in the past… the index inference model causing a computer to function to output, from the output layer, the task schedule data via an operation performed by the intermediate layer, in a case where the actual performance data is inputted into the input layer… in consideration of actual performance of a task in the present predetermined task time period, it is possible to create task schedule data in a next predetermined task time period. Therefore, it is possible to increase the possibility that the task will progress as scheduled in the next predetermined task time period. Further, it is possible to propose, by outputting the task schedule data, readjustment of a task schedule in the next predetermined task time period… it is possible to output task schedule data in which the task in the next predetermined task time period is readjusted in accordance with the progress of the task in the present predetermined task time period”; (Idomoto, [0093]; [0149]-[0150]; [0196]-[0197]; [0143]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the action duration in Iyengar to include the cycle limitation as taught by Idomoto. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of generating an optimized process order in which inefficiencies are reduced to improve an overall process efficiency in Iyengar (see par. 0085) to efficiently include the results of managing various tasks that are scheduled to be carried out (see Idomoto par. 0025).
Referring to Claim 7, Iyengar in view of Gura teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 4. Iyengar further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
determine, based on the situation information indicating a situation of the delayed process, a continuation time during which exchange of assignments of workers is continued (Iyengar, [0023]), “visual indications of activities or branches that are under producing verses over producing. Such visualization and assessment of activities may be in real time and dynamic such that embodiments described herein can provide feedback to personnel and can redirect activities in real time in response to a dynamic situation… Benefits of resource reallocation may therefore be achieved without additional supervision. Exemplary embodiments may therefore be used for dynamic workflow optimization and/or line balancing”; (Iyengar, [0021]; [0049]; [0063]).
Iyengar teaches resource reallocation for dynamic workflow optimization and/or line balancing (see par. 0023), but Iyengar does not explicitly teach:
generate the advice information indicating the determined continuation time.
However Idomoto teaches:
generate the advice information indicating the determined continuation time (Idomoto, [0150]), “…the task time period was determined to be shorter than the task schedule for a task for which the task state determining section 315 has determined that the task procedure is appropriate… In this case, it is possible to propose to shorten the task time period for the next day and later from a scheduled task time period, and to distribute manpower of workers etc. to another construction site… in a case where it is determined that the task time period is longer than the task schedule, it is possible to propose to lengthen the task time period for the next day and later from the scheduled task time period, and to allocate additional manpower of workers etc.”; (Idomoto, [0151]-[0152]), “for a task for which the task state determining section 315 has determined that an error occurred in the task procedure and a task for which the task state determining section 315 has determined that the task quality is poor, it is possible to instruct readjustment of the task… it is possible to make a proposal as to the task time period as described above when the task time period is determined to be shorter or longer than the task schedule… it is possible to cause the display device 4 to function as a proposal device that proposes readjustment of a task schedule for the next day… Therefore, the display control section 318 may propose to shorten or lengthen the task time period by displaying task schedule data that reflects a longer/shorter task time period for that day and that is outputted by the second outputting section 317”; (Idomoto, [0154]), “the task inference model 322 only needs to be constructed to infer, from actual performance of a task in a predetermined task time period, a task to be carried out in a next predetermined task time period. For example, the task inference model 322 may output the task schedule data that is not limited to data for the next day but that can be data for the day after the next day or later. Further, the task inference model 322 may receive input of the actual performance data up to the time point at which the captured image is obtained, and may output task schedule data for later than the time point”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the reallocation of resources in Iyengar to include the time limitation as taught by Idomoto. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of generating an optimized process order in which inefficiencies are reduced to improve an overall process efficiency in Iyengar (see par. 0085) to efficiently include the results of improve task efficiency (see Idomoto par. 0177).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki et al. (US 20200327482 A1) – A personnel assignment support system includes a work time period acquiring section that acquires a plurality of work time periods, an evaluating section that stepwisely evaluates a working ability for each of the workers, based on the work time periods acquired by the work time period acquiring section, an ability database that stores a result evaluated by the evaluating section, as a personal ability data for each of the workers, an assignment processing section that executes an assignment program which is executable while referring to the personal ability data, a first display device that displays the personal ability data, and contents processed by the assignment processing section, to a supervisor of the organization, and an announcement device that announces an assignment information to the workers, the assignment information relating to the personnel assignment of the workers which the supervisor determines, by using the assignment program.
Lesaint et al. (US 6578005 B1) – Periodically, the stochastic system may be interrupted to allow a further rule-based system to analyze the schedules created thus far, and fix the best ones in the schedule, so that the stochastic system can then concentrate on improving the remaining schedules. In order to allow the system to handle rapid changes in the requirements for tasks and the resources, on a scale faster than the time required to generate the schedules, a schedule modification system is arranged to make changes in the short term in between schedule updates delivered by the schedule generation system.
Gordenker et al. (US 20220245551 A1) – Aspects of the present disclosure involve systems, methods, computer program products, and the like, for scheduling and assigning work to a plurality of workers or service technicians. Data identifying jobs, timeframes that respective jobs should be performed, and job locations may be compared to times when workers are available to work. Each of the workers may be assigned particular jobs to begin during specific timeframes. These assignments may be based on information that identifies time slots when each worker is available to work, an estimated amount of time that particular jobs should take, skills of particular workers, and estimated travel times between jobs. After specific workers have been identified to work on specific jobs, a scheduling computer may send messages to computing devices of respective workers to schedule or reschedule work. These messages may identify job locations and timeframes that each job should be performed or begun.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to = whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached at (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624