DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/18/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (specifically, an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance, claim(s) 1-9 are eligible as per the Step 1 (statutory) analysis.
However, as per the Step 2A Prong One (abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon) analysis, the claimed invention in claim(s) 1 and 9 (where process claim 9 recites the same limitations as machine claim 1) are directed to a judicial exception (specifically, an abstract idea); this is because the claims recite “calculating a probability density distribution of a work time that is at least part of a setup time, based on production performance data read from storage, the setup time being time taken for a setup work that is performed between lots;” which is merely gathering/receiving data followed by manipulating/transforming data all of which fall under a sub-category of abstract ideas, namely mental processes along with mathematical concepts. The claims further recite “determining whether the work time is anormal, based on the probability density distribution;” this is also merely an action that can be performed in the human mind and/or on pen and paper, thus also reciting an abstract idea. [MPEP 2106.04(a)]
As per the Step 2A Prong Two (practical application) analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim(s) 1 and 9 simply recite data gathering and manipulation which are not incorporated into any such practical application which applies the gathered and manipulated data. Claims 1 and 9 merely recite “outputting a result of the determining” which is only a form of extra-solution activity, i.e. it does not integrate the above outlined judicial exception into a practical application. [MPEP 2106.04(d)]
As per the Step 2B (significantly more) analysis, claim(s) 1 and 9 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only recite functional units where the functions (of gather and manipulating data) are related to one another, without the recitation of any non-generic hardware that incorporates such data gathering and manipulation. As outlined above, claims 1 and 9 as a whole merely recite abstract ideas without integrating into a practical application. No further limitations/elements have been added to these claims in order to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. [MPEP 2106.05]
Thus, claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As for claim 2, which depends on claim 1, the limitations are “wherein the setup time includes: a first work time taken for post-processing of a first lot; a second work time taken for preparation to manufacture a second lot that is manufactured subsequently to the first lot; and a third work time that is between the first work time and the second work time, the calculating includes calculating a probability density distribution of each of the first work time, the second work time, and the third work time, and the determining includes: calculating the first work time, the second work time, and the third work time, based on a work condition of the setup time; and determining whether each of the first work time, the second work time, and the third work time calculated is anormal.” These limitations recite the same judicial exception of abstract ideas as outlined above with respect to claims 1 and 9. These limitations further do not add any integration into a practical application, nor do they add any additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, having recited the same abstract ideas as claims 1 and 9, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As for claim 3, which depends on claim 2, the limitations are “wherein the work condition is defined by a plurality of items including the first lot, the second lot, equipment that manufactures the first lot and the second lot, and a worker who conducts the setup work.” These limitations recite the same judicial exception of abstract ideas as outlined above with respect to claims 1, 2 and 9. These limitations further do not add any integration into a practical application, nor do they add any additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, having recited the same abstract ideas as claims 1-2 and 9, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As for claim 4, which depends on claim 1, the limitations are “wherein the calculating further includes calculating a probability density distribution of a process lead time, based on the production performance data, the process lead time being time including the setup time and a manufacturing time taken to manufacture one of the lots that is manufactured immediately after the setup time, and the determining further includes determining whether the process lead time is anormal, based on the probability density distribution of the process lead time.” These limitations recite the same judicial exception of abstract ideas as outlined above with respect to claims 1 and 9. These limitations further do not add any integration into a practical application, nor do they add any additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, having recited the same abstract ideas as claims 1 and 9, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As for claim 5, which depends on claim 4, the limitations are “wherein the determining further includes: calculating a degree of impact of the work time on an anomaly of the process lead time, based on the probability density distribution of each of the process lead time and the work time, when the process lead time is determined to be anormal; and determining whether the work time is anormal, based on the degree of impact calculated.” These limitations recite the same judicial exception of abstract ideas as outlined above with respect to claims 1, 4 and 9. These limitations further do not add any integration into a practical application, nor do they add any additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, having recited the same abstract ideas as claims 1, 4 and 9, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As for claim 6, which depends on claim 4, the limitations are “wherein the manufacturing time includes: an operating time of equipment that manufactures the lots; a stoppage loss time caused by stoppage of the equipment; and a defect loss time caused by the equipment having manufactured defective products, the calculating further includes calculating a probability density distribution of each of the operating time, the stoppage loss time, and the defect loss time, based on the production performance data, and the determining further includes: calculating a degree of impact of each of the operating time, the stoppage loss time, and the defect loss time on an anomaly of the process lead time, based on the probability density distribution of each of the process lead time, the operating time, the stoppage loss time, and the defect loss time, when the process lead time is determined to be anormal; and determining whether each of the operating time, the stoppage loss time, and the defect loss time is anormal, based on the degrees of impact calculated.” These limitations recite the same judicial exception of abstract ideas as outlined above with respect to claims 1, 4 and 9. These limitations further do not add any integration into a practical application, nor do they add any additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, having recited the same abstract ideas as claims 1, 4 and 9, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As for claim 7, which depends on claim 4, the limitations are “wherein in the calculating, the probability density distribution of the process lead time is calculated by obtaining a sum of (i) a distribution obtained by multiplying, by a total number of conforming products, a probability density distribution of a takt time taken to manufacture one conforming product, (ii) the probability density distribution of the setup time, and (iii) a predetermined correction parameter.” These limitations recite the same judicial exception of abstract ideas as outlined above with respect to claims 1, 4 and 9. These limitations further do not add any integration into a practical application, nor do they add any additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, having recited the same abstract ideas as claims 1, 4 and 9, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As for claim 8, which depends on claim 1, the limitations are “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute the information processing method according to claim 1.” These limitations recite the same judicial exception of abstract ideas as outlined above with respect to claims 1 and 9. These limitations further do not add any integration into a practical application, nor do they add any additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception because only generic computer hardware has been additionally recited in claim 8. Thus, having recited the same abstract ideas as claims 1 and 9, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AghaKouchak et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0130146) (hereinafter “AghaKouchak”).
Regarding claim 1, AghaKouchak teaches an information processing method comprising: calculating a probability density distribution of a work time that is at least part of a setup time, (Para. 44, Claim 1, 6 - - probability distribution is used)
based on production performance data read from storage, (Para. 52 - - performance data is used to calculate probability distribution)
the setup time being time taken for a setup work that is performed between lots; (Fig. 1 - - work stoppage is being interpreted as setup time)
determining whether the work time is anormal, based on the probability density distribution; (Para. 17 - - threshold is used to determine work stoppage, i.e. anormal work time)
and outputting a result of the determining. (Fig. 1 - - determined result is outputted)
Regarding claim 2, AghaKouchak further teaches wherein the setup time includes: a first work time taken for post-processing of a first lot; (Fig. 1 - - work stoppage is being interpreted as setup time)
a second work time taken for preparation to manufacture a second lot that is manufactured subsequently to the first lot; (Para. 27 - - shift, i.e. first and second lots, are used)
and a third work time that is between the first work time and the second work time, (Para. 17 - - threshold is used to determine work stoppage, i.e. anormal work time)
the calculating includes calculating a probability density distribution of each of the first work time, the second work time, and the third work time, (Para. 44, Claim 1, 6 - - probability distribution is used)
and the determining includes: calculating the first work time, the second work time, and the third work time, based on a work condition of the setup time; (Para. 27 - - shift, i.e. first and second lots, are used; Para. 17 - - threshold is used to determine work stoppage)
and determining whether each of the first work time, the second work time, and the third work time calculated is anormal. (Para. 17 - - threshold is used to determine work stoppage, i.e. anormal work time)
Regarding claim 3, AghaKouchak further teaches wherein the work condition is defined by a plurality of items including the first lot, the second lot, equipment that manufactures the first lot and the second lot, and a worker who conducts the setup work. (Para. 27 - - shift, i.e. first and second lots, are part of the work condition; Para. 64 - - labor, i.e. worker, and equipment costs are used)
Regarding claim 8, AghaKouchak further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute the information processing method according to claim 1. (Para. 70 - - computer is used, which include memory storing program instructions for the computer)
Regarding claim 9, AghaKouchak teaches an information processing device comprising: a calculator that calculates a probability density distribution of a work time that is at least part of a setup time, (Para. 44, Claim 1, 6 - - probability distribution is used)
based on production performance data read from storage, (Para. 52 - - performance data is used to calculate probability distribution)
the setup time being time taken for a setup work that is performed between lots; (Fig. 1 - - work stoppage is being interpreted as setup time)
a determiner that determines whether the work time is anormal, based on the probability density distribution; (Para. 17 - - threshold is used to determine work stoppage, i.e. anormal work time)
and an outputter that outputs a determination result of the determiner. (Fig. 1 - - determined result is outputted)
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 6876948 by Smith, which discloses assessing plant capacity including creating a histogram of the calculated capacities (Title/Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119