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 .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 04/27/2023.
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/27/2023, 02/20/2024 and 05/06/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are directed to the statutory category of medium.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 1:
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a specifying program for causing a computer to perform processing, the processing comprising:
obtaining first information that indicates a processing order of processing a plurality of objects, the plurality of objects including a plurality of types;
obtaining second information that indicates a type that is processable by each of a plurality of work devices, among the plurality of types;
distributing, based on the first information and the second information, each of the plurality of objects to any of the plurality of work devices;
obtaining a result of a simulation regarding processing of the plurality of work devices based on a result of the distributing each of the plurality of objects to any of the plurality of work devices;
counting a number N1 that corresponds to a number of objects which have moved to another work device although processing is capable of being executed on an object to be distributed next, for each of the plurality of work devices from the result of the simulation, and counting a number N2 that corresponds to a number of objects which are caused to wait since processing is executed on another object although processing is capable of being executed on the object to be distributed next, under conditions such that each of the plurality of objects waits when the work device that is capable of executing the processing on the object is executing processing on another object; and
specifying a work device to be increased or decreased with respect to the plurality of work devices, according to at least any of the number N1 or the number N2.
The limitations “distributing, based on the first information and the second information, each of the plurality of objects to any of the plurality of work devices”, “counting a number N1 that corresponds to a number of objects which have moved to another work device although processing is capable of being executed on an object to be distributed next”, “counting a number N2 that corresponds to a number of objects which are caused to wait since processing is executed on another object although processing is capable of being executed on the object to be distributed next” and “specifying a work device to be increased or decreased with respect to the plurality of work devices” are an abstract ideas because it is directed to a mathematical model. The limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Also, the limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could, mentally or on paper, observe, evaluate or analyze to make the determination of a model and its output.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a specifying program for causing a computer to perform processing, the processing comprising:” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“obtaining first information that indicates a processing order of processing a plurality of objects, the plurality of objects including a plurality of types” (general field of use and data gathering – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“obtaining second information that indicates a type that is processable by each of a plurality of work devices, among the plurality of types” (general field of use and data gathering – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“obtaining a result of a simulation regarding processing of the plurality of work devices based on a result of the distributing each of the plurality of objects to any of the plurality of work devices” (general field of use and data gathering – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“for each of the plurality of work devices from the result of the simulation” (Field of Use, MPEP 2106.05(h))(Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
“under conditions such that each of the plurality of objects waits when the work device that is capable of executing the processing on the object is executing processing on another object” (Field of Use, MPEP 2106.05(h))(Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
“according to at least any of the number N1 or the number N2” (Field of Use, MPEP 2106.05(h))(Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Claim 1 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 further recites: “wherein the specifying of the work device includes specifying a work device to be deleted from the plurality of work devices, according to the number N1” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the outcomes that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the specifying of the work device includes specifying a work device to be added to the plurality of work devices, according to the number N2” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the outcomes that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the specifying of the work device includes considering the number of waiting times of each of the plurality of types, in addition to the number N2, in a case of specifying the work device to be added to the plurality of work devices” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the type of data that is being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the specifying of the work device includes considering an additional cost of the work device to be added, in addition to the number N2, in a case of specifying the work device to be added to the plurality of work devices” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the type of data that is being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the processing order of the plurality of types is a sequentially searched order so that an objective function determined according to the processing order becomes excellent”. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the processing order (mental ordering with pen and paper) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the specifying of the work device includes specifying uses an evolutionary algorithm that optimizes the objective function when the processing order of the plurality of types is searched” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the method to solve the objective function. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the objectives (mental observation of defining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites “wherein in a case where there is a plurality of work devices that is capable of processing an object to be distributed next and the plurality of work devices is not working on another object, a distribution destination is selected according to a predetermined rule” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the parameters that are being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Step 1:
Claim 9 Step 2A prong 1:
The claim language is substantially similar as claim 1, except for the following claim elements/limitations: A specifying method comprising:
The claim does not include any additional abstract ideas from claim 1
Claim 9 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A specifying method comprising” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Claim 9 Step 2B:
The additional limitations found in claim 9, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (specifying method) and would function in its ordinary capacity, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. Step 2A Prong I and Step 2B.
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 9 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 2; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 11 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 3; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 12 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 4; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 13 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 5; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 14 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 6; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 15 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 7; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 16 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 8; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Step 1:
Claim 17 Step 2A prong 1:
The claim language is substantially similar as claim 1, except for the following claim elements/limitations: An information processing device comprising:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to perform processing including:
The claim does not include any additional abstract ideas from claim 1
Claim 17 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“An information processing device comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to perform processing including:” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Claim 17 Step 2B:
The additional limitations found in claim 17, this additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (an information processing device, memory, processor) and would function in its ordinary capacity, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. Step 2A Prong I and Step 2B.
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 17 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 18 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 2; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 19 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 3; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 20 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 4; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 21 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 5; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 22 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 6; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 23 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 7; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 24 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 8; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi Yamazaki, US 2019/0041834 A1, Published: February 7, 2019 (hereafter Yamazaki), in views of Dr. Ram Naresh Roy, NPL, “A Modern Approach to OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT”, Published: 2005 (hereafter Roy).
Regarding claim1. Yamazaki teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a specifying program for causing a computer to perform processing (Par 25, memory, program stored in a memory executed by the CPU to implement functions), the processing comprising:
obtaining first information that indicates a processing order of processing a plurality of objects, the plurality of objects including a plurality of types (Par 6, input order, optimizes product input plans for k number of products);
obtaining second information that indicates a type that is processable by each of a plurality of work devices, among the plurality of types (Par 43, m and k are parameters indicative of a number of a product, n is a parameter indicative of a quantity of products for which a product input plan is to be adopted in single time processing);
distributing, based on the first information and the second information, each of the plurality of objects to any of the plurality of work devices (Par 51, object is decided to which device a product that is currently flowed in the manufacture line is to be flowed at the branch at the process A to achieve optimum distribution);
obtaining a result of a simulation regarding processing of the plurality of work devices based on a result of the distributing each of the plurality of objects to any of the plurality of work devices (Par 29, simulator for a multi-product small volume manufacture line as a solver for visualizing the numerically evaluating products virtually flowing);
counting a number N1 that corresponds to a number of objects which have moved to another work device although processing is capable of being executed on an object to be distributed next (Fig 7, m, k, n are counted) (Par 48, product input plans for the second to 13th products, transmits the product input plan for the next product adopted, to the work terminal or manufacture line, changes m to m+n and k to k+n),
for each of the plurality of work devices from the result of the simulation (Fig 6, manufacture line simulator) (Par 31, line simulator, what is to be optimized and what index is to be applied, throughput time), and
counting a number N2 that corresponds to a number of objects which are caused to wait since processing is executed on another object although processing is capable of being executed on the object to be distributed next, under conditions such that each of the plurality of objects waits when the work device that is capable of executing the processing on the object is executing processing on another object (Par 43, input plan for the next product, second next product is input, created n is set to n=2) (Par 49, express product occurs, determines k number of product input plan, taking into consideration that an interruption by an express product occurs, optimization condition is changed, route along which the express product will arrive earliest at the goal is presented as the optimization index); and
Yamazaki does not teach specifying a work device to be increased or decreased with respect to the plurality of work devices, according to at least any of the number N1 or the number N2.
Roy teaches specifying a work device to be increased or decreased with respect to the plurality of work devices, according to at least any of the number N1 or the number N2 (Page 32, reallocation to further improve, increases cost, decrease cost depending on X, Y and Z) (Page 28, example 2.4, company is considering adding another plant at Z) (Page 57, sec 3.5.6.1, activities do not add any value to the product, their elimination is 100% cost savings, thus decreasing the devices).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki to incorporate the teachings of Roy to increase or decrease a working device as an optimization problem because optimizing would result in cost saving (Roy, Page 57, sec 3.5.6.1).
Regarding claim 2. Yamazaki and Roy teach the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the specifying of the work device includes specifying a work device to be deleted from the plurality of work devices, according to the number N1 (Roy, Page 29, production capacities, plant at Z could absorb 20 unit per week, with X, Y) (Roy, Page 32, reallocation, crossed circles, represents that changes have been made, BX and CY have both become vacant).
Regarding claim 3. Yamazaki and Roy teach the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the specifying of the work device includes specifying a work device to be added to the plurality of work devices, according to the number N2 (Roy, Page 29, adding units of supply from row B until the demand in column X is satisfied).
Regarding claim 4. Yamazaki and Roy teach the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 3, wherein the specifying of the work device includes considering the number of waiting times of each of the plurality of types, in addition to the number N2, in a case of specifying the work device to be added to the plurality of work devices (Roy, Page 37, effects of plant layout, waiting time of the semi-finished product is minimized) (Roy, Page 24, cost transportation equation 2.1) (Roy, Page 33, table 2.10 optimal solution, selects the production plants and distribution plants).
Regarding claim 5. Yamazaki and Roy teach the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 3, wherein the specifying of the work device includes considering an additional cost of the work device to be added, in addition to the number N2, in a case of specifying the work device to be added to the plurality of work devices (Roy, Page 24, cost transportation equation 2.1) (Roy, Page 33, net savings).
Regarding claim 6. Yamazaki and Roy teach the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the processing order of the plurality of types is a sequentially searched order so that an objective function determined according to the processing order becomes excellent (Roy, Page 47, sec 3.5.2.1, objective function, minimize cost).
Regarding claim 7. Yamazaki and Roy teach the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the specifying of the work device includes specifying uses an evolutionary algorithm that optimizes the objective function when the processing order of the plurality of types is searched (Yamazaki, Par 37, genetic algorithm for optimization).
Regarding claim 8. Yamazaki and Roy teach the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein in a case where there is a plurality of work devices that is capable of processing an object to be distributed next (Roy, Page 32, reallocation, evaluated for further improvements) and
the plurality of work devices is not working on another object, a distribution destination is selected according to a predetermined rule (Roy, Page 32, no change, possibility for savings, cell AZ has the greatest potential for improvement).
Regarding claim 9. Yamazaki teach a specifying method comprising:
obtaining first information that indicates a processing order of processing a plurality of objects, the plurality of objects including a plurality of types (Par 6, input order, optimizes product input plans for k number of products);
obtaining second information that indicates a type that is processable by each of a plurality of work devices, among the plurality of types (Par 43, m and k are parameters indicative of a number of a product, n is a parameter indicative of a quantity of products for which a product input plan is to be adopted in single time processing);
distributing, based on the first information and the second information, each of the plurality of objects to any of the plurality of work devices (Par 51, object is decided to which device a product that is currently flowed in the manufacture line is to be flowed at the branch at the process A to achieve optimum distribution);
obtaining a result of a simulation regarding processing of the plurality of work devices based on a result of the distributing each of the plurality of objects to any of the plurality of work devices (Par 29, simulator for a multi-product small volume manufacture line as a solver for visualizing the numerically evaluating products virtually flowing);
counting a number N1 that corresponds to a number of objects which have moved to another work device although processing is capable of being executed on an object to be distributed next (Fig 7, m, k, n are counted) (Par 48, product input plans for the second to 13th products, transmits the product input plan for the next product adopted, to the work terminal or manufacture line, changes m to m+n and k to k+n), for each of the plurality of work devices from the result of the simulation (Fig 6, manufacture line simulator) (Par 31, line simulator, what is to be optimized and what index is to be applied, throughput time), and
counting a number N2 that corresponds to a number of objects which are caused to wait since processing is executed on another object although processing is capable of being executed on the object to be distributed next, under conditions such that each of the plurality of objects waits when the work device that is capable of executing the processing on the object is executing processing on another object (Par 43, input plan for the next product, second next product is input, created n is set to n=2) (Par 49, express product occurs, determines k number of product input plan, taking into consideration that an interruption by an express product occurs, optimization condition is changed, route along which the express product will arrive earliest at the goal is presented as the optimization index); and
Yamazaki does not teach specifying a work device to be increased or decreased with respect to the plurality of work devices, according to at least any of the number N1 or the number N2.
Roy teaches specifying a work device to be increased or decreased with respect to the plurality of work devices, according to at least any of the number N1 or the number N2 (Page 32, reallocation to further improve, increases cost, decrease cost depending on X, Y and Z) (Page 28, example 2.4, company is considering adding another plant at Z) (Page 57, sec 3.5.6.1, activities do not add any value to the product, their elimination is 100% cost savings, thus decreasing the devices).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki to incorporate the teachings of Roy to increase or decrease a working device as an optimization problem because optimizing would result in cost saving (Roy, Page 57, sec 3.5.6.1).
Regarding claim 10. Yamazaki and Roy teach the specifying method according to claim 9, wherein the specifying of the work device includes specifying a work device to be deleted from the plurality of work devices, according to the number N1 (Roy, Page 29, production capacities, plant at Z could absorb 20 unit per week, with X, Y) (Roy, Page 32, reallocation, crossed circles, represents that changes have been made, BX and CY have both become vacant).
Regarding claim 11. Yamazaki and Roy teach the specifying method according to claim 9, wherein the specifying of the work device includes specifying a work device to be added to the plurality of work devices, according to the number N2 (Roy, Page 29, adding units of supply from row B until the demand in column X is satisfied).
Regarding claim 12. Yamazaki and Roy teach the specifying method according to claim 11, wherein the specifying of the work device includes considering the number of waiting times of each of the plurality of types, in addition to the number N2, in a case of specifying the work device to be added to the plurality of work devices (Roy, Page 37, effects of plant layout, waiting time of the semi-finished product is minimized) (Roy, Page 24, cost transportation equation 2.1) (Roy, Page 33, table 2.10 optimal solution, selects the production plants and distribution plants).
Regarding claim 13. Yamazaki and Roy teach the specifying method according to claim 11, wherein the specifying of the work device includes considering an additional cost of the work device to be added, in addition to the number N2, in a case of specifying the work device to be added to the plurality of work devices (Roy, Page 24, cost transportation equation 2.1) (Roy, Page 33, net savings).
Regarding claim 14. Yamazaki and Roy teach the specifying method according to claim 9, wherein the processing order of the plurality of types is a sequentially searched order so that an objective function determined according to the processing order becomes excellent (Roy, Page 47, sec 3.5.2.1, objective function, minimize cost).
Regarding claim 15. Yamazaki and Roy teach the specifying method according to claim 9, wherein the specifying of the work device uses an evolutionary algorithm that optimizes the objective function when the processing order of the plurality of types is searched (Yamazaki, Par 37, genetic algorithm for optimization).
Regarding claim 16. Yamazaki and Roy teach the specifying method according to claim 9, wherein in a case where there is a plurality of work devices that is capable of processing an object to be distributed next (Roy, Page 32, reallocation, evaluated for further improvements) and
the plurality of work devices is not working on another object, a distribution destination is selected according to a predetermined rule (Roy, Page 32, no change, possibility for savings, cell AZ has the greatest potential for improvement).
Regarding claim 17. Yamazaki teach an information processing device (Fig 1, server) comprising:
a memory (Fig 3, ROM, RAM, HDD); and a processor coupled to the memory (Fig 3, CPU), the processor being configured to perform processing including (Par 25, memory, program stored in a memory executed by the CPU to implement functions):
obtaining first information that indicates a processing order of processing a plurality of objects, the plurality of objects including a plurality of types (Par 6, input order, optimizes product input plans for k number of products);
obtaining second information that indicates a type that is processable by each of a plurality of work devices, among the plurality of types (Par 43, m and k are parameters indicative of a number of a product, n is a parameter indicative of a quantity of products for which a product input plan is to be adopted in single time processing);
distributing, based on the first information and the second information, each of the plurality of objects to any of the plurality of work devices (Par 51, object is decided to which device a product that is currently flowed in the manufacture line is to be flowed at the branch at the process A to achieve optimum distribution);
obtaining a result of a simulation regarding processing of the plurality of work devices based on a result of the distributing each of the plurality of objects to any of the plurality of work devices (Par 29, simulator for a multi-product small volume manufacture line as a solver for visualizing the numerically evaluating products virtually flowing);
counting a number N1 that corresponds to a number of objects which have moved to another work device although processing is capable of being executed on an object to be distributed next (Fig 7, m, k, n are counted) (Par 48, product input plans for the second to 13th products, transmits the product input plan for the next product adopted, to the work terminal or manufacture line, changes m to m+n and k to k+n), for each of the plurality of work devices from the result of the simulation (Fig 6, manufacture line simulator) (Par 31, line simulator, what is to be optimized and what index is to be applied, throughput time), and
counting a number N2 that corresponds to a number of objects which are caused to wait since processing is executed on another object although processing is capable of being executed on the object to be distributed next, under conditions such that each of the plurality of objects waits when the work device that is capable of executing the processing on the object is executing processing on another object (Par 43, input plan for the next product, second next product is input, created n is set to n=2) (Par 49, express product occurs, determines k number of product input plan, taking into consideration that an interruption by an express product occurs, optimization condition is changed, route along which the express product will arrive earliest at the goal is presented as the optimization index); and
Yamazaki does not teach specifying a work device to be increased or decreased with respect to the plurality of work devices, according to at least any of the number N1 or the number N2.
Roy teaches specifying a work device to be increased or decreased with respect to the plurality of work devices, according to at least any of the number N1 or the number N2 (Page 32, reallocation to further improve, increases cost, decrease cost depending on X, Y and Z) (Page 28, example 2.4, company is considering adding another plant at Z) (Page 57, sec 3.5.6.1, activities do not add any value to the product, their elimination is 100% cost savings, thus decreasing the devices).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki to incorporate the teachings of Roy to increase or decrease a working device as an optimization problem because optimizing would result in cost saving (Roy, Page 57, sec 3.5.6.1).
Regarding claim 18. Yamazaki and Roy teach the information processing device according to claim 17, wherein the specifying of the work device includes specifying a work device to be deleted from the plurality of work devices, according to the number N1 (Roy, Page 29, production capacities, plant at Z could absorb 20 unit per week, with X, Y) (Roy, Page 32, reallocation, crossed circles, represents that changes have been made, BX and CY have both become vacant).
Regarding claim 19. Yamazaki and Roy teach the information processing device according to claim 17, wherein the specifying of the work device includes specifying a work device to be added to the plurality of work devices, according to the number N2 (Roy, Page 29, adding units of supply from row B until the demand in column X is satisfied).
Regarding claim 20. Yamazaki and Roy teach the information processing device according to claim 19, wherein the specifying of the work device includes considering the number of waiting times of each of the plurality of types, in addition to the number N2, in a case of specifying the work device to be added to the plurality of work devices (Roy, Page 37, effects of plant layout, waiting time of the semi-finished product is minimized) (Roy, Page 24, cost transportation equation 2.1) (Roy, Page 33, table 2.10 optimal solution, selects the production plants and distribution plants).
Regarding claim 21. Yamazaki and Roy teach the information processing device according to claim 19, wherein the specifying of the work device includes considering an additional cost of the work device to be added, in addition to the number N2, in a case of specifying the work device to be added to the plurality of work devices (Roy, Page 24, cost transportation equation 2.1) (Roy, Page 33, net savings).
Regarding claim 22. Yamazaki and Roy teach the information processing device according to claim 17, wherein the processing order of the plurality of types is a sequentially searched order so that an objective function determined according to the processing order becomes excellent (Roy, Page 47, sec 3.5.2.1, objective function, minimize cost).
Regarding claim 23. Yamazaki and Roy teach the information processing device according to claim 17, wherein the specifying of the work device uses an evolutionary algorithm that optimizes the objective function when the processing order of the plurality of types is searched (Yamazaki, Par 37, genetic algorithm for optimization).
Regarding claim 24. Yamazaki and Roy teach the information processing device according to claim 17, wherein in a case where there is a plurality of work devices that is capable of processing an object to be distributed next (Roy, Page 32, reallocation, evaluated for further improvements) and the plurality of work devices is not working on another object, a distribution destination is selected according to a predetermined rule (Roy, Page 32, no change, possibility for savings, cell AZ has the greatest potential for improvement).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Daniela Marasova, NPL, “Simulation of the Use of the Material Handling Equipment in the Operation Process”, discloses simulating bottle necks in operations of material handling equipment, visualizes the material flow, adjusting production times, workplaces configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL JAVIER CALLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)-272-3676. 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.
/A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights