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 .
This Office action is responsive to the communication filed on 12/02/2025. The claim(s) 1- 13 is/are pending, of which the claim(s) 1 is/are in independent form.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's following arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I) Invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
The remarks states that “claims have been amended to remove all instances of the word "unit", thereby mooting the Office Action's invocations of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).” See Remarks, page 6.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that even after the amendments, the claim elements continue to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as shown below. In the amendment, while the claims have been amended to replace the recitation of words “unit” with corresponding functional names (e.g., “collecting unit” with “collector”, “creating unit” with creator and so forth), these functional units still encompass placeholder term and each coupled with respective functions without providing a sufficient corresponding structure to perform the function(s). See “3-prong analysis” in MPEP 2181 (I). For example, the term “collector” is a placeholder term. This term is coupled with a function of “collects facility condition information”. There are no other structural elements in the claim limitation to modify the collector. While the phrase “a facility condition” is recited, it is not the term of the art and is not capable of performing the entire claimed function.
II) Rejections under 35 U.S. C. § 103
1) As to claim 1, applicants argue:
“amended claim 1 in order to even more particularly distinguish over Singh and Gartland…Singh fails to disclose or suggest that a facility where the client device is installed or a facility whose issues are reported by the client device is a production facility. Singh also fails to disclose or suggest that the dynamic sequencing platform manages the facility where the client device is installed when no issue is caused…cycle of the manager and the cycle of the operator are connected in an adaptable manner with the specific operation instruction to improve conditions of a production facility, as shown, for example, in Fig. 14…Amended claim 1 is therefore allowable over Singh and Gartland for at least the reasons noted above” Remarks, pages 7- 8.
Put differently, applicant appears to argue that Singh (US 20210158146 A1) and Gartland fails to teach amended limitations and the facility used by the client devices of fig. 1A of Singh are not “production facility.”
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees.
a) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “disclose or suggest that a facility where the client device is installed or a facility whose issues are reported by the client device is a production facility. Singh also fails to disclose or suggest that the dynamic sequencing platform manages the facility where the client device is installed when no issue is caused….cycle of the manager and the cycle of the operator function in an adaptable manner to improve conditions of a production facility with a”) are not positively recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Please note that applicant’s fig. 1 and paras. 056 & 058 clearly state the item 100 as an example of the claimed “The management apparatus” which “is constituted by a general-purpose computer system”. In applicant’s disclosure, the production facility is made up of items X1, Y1,…., Y4. Thus the items X1, Y1,…. Y4 are not part of the claimed management apparatus. Thus, the actually claimed subject matter in claim 1 is-- a management apparatus but not the production facility that is being managed by the management apparatus. An apparatus/system claim covers what it is, but not what it does and the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claim. See MPEP 2114-2115. Here, the elements of “production facility” are articles worked upon by the claimed management apparatus but are not structural elements thereof.
Nevertheless, while the claimed “a production facility for producing a product” does not get patentable weight in claim 1 since it is not positively recited, under BRI, the system of Singha still clearly teaches a production facility as well. This is so because the claimed production facility covers every possible types of the facility that produce any possible products. See“ producing a product” without specifying what product is being produced in the preamble. For example, the cited Singh (US 20210158146 A1) discloses:
[007], In some cases, the inquiries may relate to a technical issue with a product and/or a service, and the service agents may be tasked with assisting the consumers in resolving the technical issue. The service agents may be trained to troubleshoot the technical issue with the consumers according to general guidelines provided by a product manufacturer and/or a service provider.
[010] By providing efficient and effective resolutions, the dynamic sequencing platform maintains products and/or services being used by consumers in optimal operating conditions, reduces downtime, and increases productivity.
Please note that the elements shown in Figs. 1A- 1D (of Singh reference) are merely exemplary, and its “contact center” that provides “the troubleshooting service” can provide such services/support to any consumers relating to a product and/or services per paras. 007, 013. Therefore, while the “management apparatus” of the claim 1 does not require the production facility to produce a produce, Singh nevertheless teaches this requirement as well. Furthermore, Singh’s contact center clearly continues to receive and process the real-time data, the issue along with feedback of the previous commands and adjusting the future commands provided to the production facility based on the feedback (see, paras. 032, 063, “dynamic sequencing platform may receive feedback data…updated with the feedback data”), it dynamically manages the production facility that requests services.
b) Although, not explicitly argued, it appears that applicant believes the cited references fail to show the amended limitations of the claim 1 as well. However, as fully shown below in the updated 103 rejections, these limitations are also clearly disclosed by Singh. Please refer to paras. 032 & 063 that teach “receive feedback data (e.g., a performance metric, an alarm, a notification, a response, and/or the like) relating to an efficacy of the optimal action”. The feedback is received after transmitting the operation instruction at least once in previous time. The receiving of the response at the contact center means receiving and creating/determining of “the operation instruction information including whether or not the operation instructed by the operation instruction information has been performed from the instruction target”.
For the forgoing reasons, applicant’s argument contending “Amended claim 1 is therefore allowable over Singh and Gartland” is deemed not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claims 1- 13: See figs. 7/13, Spec, page 10, paras. 1056-057, 2059-065, 096. The structure of these elements is interpreted as “a CPU reading and executing a program stored in the auxiliary storage device”.
“a facility condition collector”, see, para. 061
“an operation instruction creator”
“an operation instruction transmitter”
“an operation information receiver”
“a management state information creator”
“an additional operation instruction issuer”
In claim 5:
“an operation instruction rule editor”
In claims 13: See para.3058
“a third operation instruction receiver”
“a program changing changer”
“a second operation information recorder”
“a third operation information transmitter”
In claim 12: 4See para. 058
“a second operation instruction receiver”
“an operation executor”
“a first operation information recorder”
“a second operation information transmitter”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1- 5 & 7- 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 20210158146 A1) in view of Gartland et al. (US 20050075748 A1). Singh and Gartland are references of the record.
Regarding claim 1, Singh teaches a management apparatus [computer/server used by “contact center… relating to a product” e.g., “dynamic sequencing platform 240” of figs. 1s- 2 that can “include a server device or a group of server devices”] that manages [“identify a cause of the technical issue and/or to resolve the technical issue”] a production facility [facility where the client device(s) 210 are installed or the facility whose issues are reported by client devices] for producing a product, the management apparatus (here, the claimed subject matter is to a management apparatus, but not a production facility and hence it does not impart patentable distinction) comprising: ([007, 036-037, 040-041]);
[a] a facility condition collector that collects [Fig. 4, step 410: “receiving data associated with a troubleshooting service”] facility condition information [“real-time data associated with a troubleshooting service”] regarding conditions of the production facility [facility where the one or more client device(s) 210 are installed] from the production facility ([011, 5016, 037, 040, 059]);
[b] an operation instruction determiner that determines operation instruction information [“identify an optimal resolution based on the historical data and the real-time data”] indicating an instruction to perform an operation relating to the production facility based on the facility condition information ([011, 031, 065]);
[c] an operation instruction transmitter that transmits [“the dynamic sequencing platform may directly control the network device (e.g., using a network command) to perform the optimal action”, “and transmit the recommendation and/or the instruction to the service agent and/or the consumer”] the operation instruction information to an instruction target ([009, 031, 033, 062]);
[d] an operation information receiver that receives operation information regarding status [“and monitor a response to the optimal action provided by the network device”, “receive feedback data… relating to an efficacy of the optimal action”] of response to the operation instruction information including whether or not the operation instructed by the operation instruction information has been performed [ “the dynamic sequencing platform may receive feedback data (e.g., a performance metric, an alarm, a notification, a response, and/or the like) relating to an efficacy of the optimal action in resolving the unresolved issue”] from the instruction target ([031-032, 063]);
[e] a management state information creator that creates management state [Fig. 1A shows its “historical data” to include at least 3 parameters: “set of historical issues previously observed”, “set of historical actions”, and “set of historical resolutions associated with the set of historical issues”] information including the operation instruction information, the operation information indicating in real time whether or not the operation instructed by the operation instruction information has
been performed [“the optimal resolution and an unresolved issue indicated by the real-time data, and cause the optimal action to be performed.”], and the facility condition information (Fig. 1A, [6014-015, 033]); and
[f] an additional operation instruction issuer that receives additional operation instruction information [the output of the “machine learning model”, the updated optimal resolution from the model, “identify the optimal (e.g., shortest) path of actions to perform to achieve the optimal resolution”, “transmit the recommendation and/or the instruction to the service agent and/or the consumer via the client device”] indicating an instruction to perform an additional operation to the
operation instructed by the operation instruction information based on the management state information, and causes the operation instruction determiner to determine [“identify a next optimal action action(e.g., a next best action) based on the optimal path and a prior action captured and/or denoted by the real-time data”, “identify subsequent optimal action(s) to be performed” of fig. 1D and causing the subsequent optimal action to be performed] including the additional operation instruction information ([011, 033-034, 061-7063]).
It can be argued that Singh’s dynamic sequencing platform may not necessarily (although may implicitly disclose) create operation instruction to resolve the issues since Singh does not explicitly disclose how the “set of optimal action” are generated even though it determines the resolutions to choose and transmit based on the historical data of fig. 1A. Put differently, Singh teaches all elements of the claim except those with strikethrough emphasis shown above.
Garland is relied on to cure these deficiencies of Singh. Gartland teaches a management apparatus [item 32 (“block 32 represents the host system (or supervisor) which includes therein a MES subsystem 34”)+ 120 (“adds a novel issue resolution (ISR) system 120”] that manages a production facility [“there are many different types of production equipment, collectively represented by block 40,”] (fig. 1, [038]). More specifically, Garland teaches a management apparatus comprising:
a facility condition collector that collects facility condition information regarding conditions of the production facility from the production facility; an operation instruction creator [“adds a novel issue resolution (ISR) system 120 to help automatically…it authorizes the issue resolution command center (ISRCC) 126 to generate an appropriate set of commands to the host system 32”] that creates operation instruction information indicating an instruction to perform an operation relating to the production facility based on the facility condition information and causes the operation instruction creator to create (“generate”) the operation instruction information [“generate a recommendation and/or an instruction to perform the optimal action, and transmit the recommendation and/or the instruction”] including the additional operation instruction information ([030, 038, 044- 046]). In summary, Gartland explicitly teaches limitations that may or may not be in Singh.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Gartland and Singh because they both related to a same filed of endeavor of a management apparatus processing collected condition information to determine operation instruction to help repair monitored facility and (2) modify the management apparatus of Singh to include missing limitations (“using of instruction creating unit” to create transmitted operation instruction Information and the operation instruction information including the additional operation instruction information) from Gartland.
Doing so would minimize need for human intervention to identify operation instruction and additional operational information to correct the collected facility conditions thereby conserving time and resources (Gartland [014, 0124] & Singh [008, 010]). Accordingly, Singh in view of Gartland teaches each element of the claim and renders invention thereof obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 2, Singh in view of Gartland teaches the management apparatus according to wherein the management state information includes, as the operation information, execution status information indicating [e.g., “the unresolved issue, and/or the like”] whether or not the instructed operation has been performed (Singh [020, 023] Gartland, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Singh in view of Gartland teaches the management apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the additional operation instructed with the additional operation instruction information is the operation instructed with the operation instruction information (Singh, Fig.1D, Gartland, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Singh in view of Gartland teaches the management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the additional operation instructed with the additional operation instruction information is different from the operation instructed with the operation instruction information (Singh, figs. 1A- 1D, optimum and subsequent optimal actions are different).
Regarding claim 5, Singh in view of Gartland teaches the management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operation instruction creator creates the operation instruction information based on the facility condition information and an operation instruction rule [“domain-based heuristic rule and/or the like”] in which the facility condition information is associated with the operation instruction information, and the management apparatus further includes an operation instruction rule editor that accepts editing of the operation instruction rule based on the management state information (Singh, [019]).
Regarding claim 7, Singh in view of Gartland teaches the management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operation instruction information indicates an instruction for an operator [“generate a recommendation and/or an instruction to perform …the consumer via the client device”] to perform the operation on the production facility (Singh [030]).
Regarding claim 8, Singh in view of Gartland teaches the management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operation instruction information indicates an instruction for an apparatus included in the production facility to perform the operation (Singh Fig. 4, [062]).
Regarding claim 9, Singh in view of Gartland teaches the management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operation instruction information indicates an instruction to perform the operation relating to a program executed in any apparatus included in the production facility (Singh Fig. 4, [062]).
Regarding claim 10, Singh in view of Gartland teaches/suggests the management system comprising: the management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1);and
a first terminal [one of server device not shown in figs out of “a group of server devices”. The servers of the clouds are well-known to include display unit, input unit and transmitting unit so that another user can review and provide inputs to these data using a another server device. In the cloud environment, the servers can exchange data] configured to communicate with the management apparatus, wherein the first terminal includes: a management state information display unit that displays the management state information created by the management apparatus; an additional operation instruction inputter that accepts input of the additional operation instruction information; and an additional operation instruction transmitter that transmits the input additional operation instruction information to the management apparatus (MPEP 2144.01, Singh Fig. 2 ,[041, 044] & Gartland Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Singh in view of Gartland teaches the management system according to claim 10, further comprising a second terminal [one network device 220 “Network storage device 220 includes one or more devices” that exchange data with the cloud from “Client device 210 includes one or more devices”] configured to communicate with the management apparatus, wherein the second terminal includes: a first operation instruction receiver that receives the operation instruction information transmitted from the management apparatus and including an instruction for an operator to perform the operation on the production facility; an operation instruction display that displays the operation instruction information; an operation information inputter that accepts input of the operation information corresponding to the operation instruction information; and a first operation information transmitter that transmits the accepted operation information to the management apparatus (Singh Fig. 2 [038] & Gartland Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Singh in view of Gartland teaches the management system further comprising a third apparatus [“Client device 210 includes one or more devices”] constituting the production facility and configured to communicate with the management apparatus, wherein the third apparatus includes: a second operation instruction receiver that receives the operation instruction information transmitted from the management apparatus; an operation executor that executes the operation instructed with the operation instruction information; a first operation information recorder that records the operation information regarding execution status of the operation; and a second operation information transmitter that transmits the recorded operation information to the management apparatus (Singh Fig. 2 [036-037] & Gartland Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Singh in view of Gartland teaches the management system according to claim 10 further comprising a program management apparatus configured to communicate with the management apparatus and manage a program executed in any apparatus included in the production facility, wherein the program management apparatus includes: a third operation instruction receiver that receives the operation instruction information transmitted from the management apparatus; a program changer that changes the program by performing the operation instructed with the operation instruction information; a second operation information recorder that records the operation information regarding a state of change in the program; and a third operation information transmitter that transmits the recorded operation information to the management apparatus (Singh Fig. 2 & Gartland Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Gartland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saneyoshi et al. (US 20200058081 A1). Saneyoshi is reference of the record.
Regarding claim 6, Singh in view of Gartland teaches the management apparatus according to claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Singh in view of Gartland may not teach wherein the production facility is a surface mount production line for printed circuit boards, and a target of the operation instructed with the operation instruction information is at least any of a solder printing apparatus, a mounter, and a reflow furnace.
Saneyoshi teaches a management apparatus [“production management apparatus 100”] that manages a production facility for producing a product the management apparatus comprising: a facility condition collecting unit that collects facility condition information regarding conditions of the production facility from the production facility ([052, 066], fig. 1);
wherein the production facility is a surface mount production line for printed circuit boards, and a target of the operation instructed with the operation instruction information is at least any of a solder printing apparatus, a mounter, and a reflow furnace ([095-096]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Saneyoshi and Singh in view of Gartland because they both related to a management apparatus to manage a production facility and (2) modify the system of Singh in view of Gartland to include missing limitations (e.g., have the management apparatus to manage a surface mount production line) as in Saneyoshi. Doing so would allow to expand the usability of the management apparatus of the Singh in view of Garland. Furthermore, Saneyoshi’s SMT can be understood as an additional exemplary facility that can be managed by the management apparatus of Singh in view of Gartland.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 “Functions of the management apparatus 100, which will be described later, are realized as a result of the CPU reading and executing a program stored in the auxiliary storage device…some of the functions of the management apparatus 100 may be realized by a server (for example, a cloud server) on the network”
2 “includes functional units for realizing functions that enable the manager of a production facility to
efficiently perform maintenance of the facility and quality control.”
3 “the program management server 40 corresponds to a program management apparatus in the present invention.
4 the production apparatuses X1 to X3 and the inspection apparatuses Y1 to Y4 correspond to third apparatuses in 15 the present invention
5 “the dynamic sequencing platform may receive real-time data associated with the trouble shooting service from the client device… real-time data may include information relating to an issue type, a product type, a service type”
6 “a set of historical actions performed in connection with the set of historical issues, and a set of historical resolutions associated with the set of historical issues.”
7 “Once the optimal action has been performed, and if the unresolved issue persists, process 400 may return one of preceding blocks (e.g., block 420) to identify an updated optimal resolution, identify an updated optimal action, and cause the updated optimal action to be performed”