DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 13 are presented for examination. Claims 1 - 12 are rejected.
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 .
Specification Objection
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract is objected to because it contains more than 150 words.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 2 and claim 13, line 5 recites “CAD”, but it is recommended the term is amended to recite “CAD (computer-aided design)” or “computer-aided design (CAD)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9, line 9 and claim 12, line 27 recites “KPI”, but it is recommended the term recites “Key Performance Indicator (KPI)”. Appropriate correction is required.
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: storage unit configured to store, computation unit configured to design, candidate module group extraction unit that is a functional unit configured to use…and that is configured to extract, in claim 1, operation planning unit that is a functional unit configured to use…and that is configured to create, in claim 2, work allocation unit that is a functional unit configured to use…and that is configured to allocate, in claim 3, configuration optimization unit configured to optimize, in claim 4, work order planning unit configured to determine, in claim 7, arrangement unit that is a functional unit configured to use…and that is configured to generate in claim 8, configuration optimization unit configured to allocate in claim 9, output unit configured to generate, in claim 10, input unit configured to receive and adjustment unit configured to perform in claim 11, storage unit configured to store, computational unit configured to design, candidate module group extraction unit that is a functional unit configured to use, communication unit configured to transmit, in claim 12.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “similar” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear in the claim how close in terms of a number, threshold or value, etc., a module group needs to be for configurations of the modules to merge. The term “similar” in claim 5 is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim limitation “storage unit configured to store”, “computation unit configured to design”, “candidate module group extraction unit that is a functional unit configured to use…and that is configured to extract”, in claim 1, “operation planning unit that is a functional unit configured to use…and that is configured to create, in claim 2, “work allocation unit that is a functional unit configured to use…and that is configured to allocate”, in claim 3, “configuration optimization unit configured to optimize”, in claim 4, “work order planning unit configured to determine”, in claim 7, “arrangement unit that is a functional unit configured to use…and that is configured to generate” in claim 8, “configuration optimization unit configured to allocate” in claim 9, “output unit configured to generate”, in claim 10, “input unit configured to receive” and “adjustment unit configured to perform: in claim 11, “storage unit configured to store”, “computational unit configured to design”, “candidate module group extraction unit that is a functional unit configured to use”, “communication unit configured to transmit”, in claim 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions, listed above. In particular, the specification does not disclose of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the functions recited in the listed claim limitations. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the claimed functions above can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 5 and 6 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions shown above. The specification does not demonstrate the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one or ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 5 and 6 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 13: The prior art of Hammack et al. (U.S. Patent 9,792,004 B2) discloses a process plant configuration with module objects, including control modules, equipment modules, Wang et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2012/0232685 A1) discloses a processing modeling and optimization module, a casting design module, product geometry and property and a casting flowpath scheme, Rudnitsky et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0319630 A1) discloses a design flow process using a design created with CAD, and Suzuki et al (WO 2005078542 A1) discloses a flowchart in a design document for designing equipment, including a control panel for operating machinery, equipment specification design, machine design, control panel design.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Hammack, Wang, Rudnitsky, and Suzuki, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses a production line design method, including the steps of a production line design obtained based on a design of equipment, design of the control, design of the process performed, and a design of the arrangement, in the order recited, with a configuration pattern obtained using the design of equipment step, and combining components regarding module groups based on work compatibility, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Claims 1 - 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1 and 12: The prior art of Hammack et al. (U.S. Patent 9,792,004 B2) discloses a process plant configuration with module objects, including control modules, equipment modules, Wang et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2012/0232685 A1) discloses a processing modeling and optimization module, a casting design module, product geometry and property and a casting flowpath scheme, Rudnitsky et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0319630 A1) discloses a design flow process using a design created with CAD, and Suzuki et al (WO 2005078542 A1) discloses a flowchart in a design document for designing equipment, including a control panel for operating machinery, equipment specification design, machine design, control panel design.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Hammack, Wang, Rudnitsky, and Suzuki, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses a production line design method, including the steps of a production line design obtained based on a design of equipment, design of the control, design of the process performed, and a design of the arrangement, in the order recited, with a configuration pattern obtained using the design of equipment step, and combining components regarding module groups based on work compatibility, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent claims 2 - 11 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claim 1, an allowable base claim under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights