DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 1/21/2026. Claims 1-10, 12-19 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 19, are amended. No claims have been added. Claim 11 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 18, filed 1/21/2026, with respect to the objections of claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of applicant’s amendments. The previous objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued the 101. Specifically the applicant has argued “Thus, the claimed processes are integrated into a physical process, which cannot be carried out by the managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals including social activities. Thus, the claimed processes should not be interpreted as the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" group and "Mathematical concepts" group (Step 2A, prong I: No).” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps of the invention include executing an assignment model based on an objective function, executing a production line switching counts optimization model, performing form batching based on an objective function, solving for a schedule plan comprising production line assignments and sequences. The steps are a formulation and resolution of a constrained optimization problem. The fact that the inputs to the optimization problems are applied to a production line does not change that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The courts have consistently held that the use of mathematical concepts in a manufacturing context does not remove the claim from being directed to an abstract idea. With regard to the certain methods of organizing human activity arguments. The revised 2019 guidance discusses how certain methods of organizing human activities include commercial and business interactions and not just merely managing interpersonal social activity. Production scheduling, specifically assigning work orders to production lines to optimize throughput, minimize costs, meet delivery deadlines is a commercial and industrial management activity. The recitation of a plurality of production lines that are controlled to process the work orders according to a scheduled plan is not a technological improvement. Transmitting a schedule plan to an output device and generically stating that the production lines are controlled according to the a plan is merely claimed as apply it. The applicant’s amendments merely clarify the scope of the operation but does not make the claims any less abstract.
The applicant argues “Additionally, claim 1 provides an improvement in planning a set of optimal or near- optimal desired production schedule plans within a reasonable time (paragraph [0004] of the published application). By applying the second objective function, it is possible to help users quickly obtain the work order assignment plan with the optimal operating efficiency under the condition of satisfying the limitation of various manufacturing practices (paragraph [0050] of the published application). In this way, the production line switching counts may be reduced to improve the utilization rate of production capacity, not only can the scheduling decision be optimized. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention provides a technical improvement to the technical field, and thus the claimed elements integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and impose a limit on practicing the alleged abstract idea. Therefore, the applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims should be patent eligible under step 2A, prong 2.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears as though the applicant is arguing that the claim is a technical improvement because the claim produces better scheduling outcomes. However, this arguments reveals that the alleged improvement is to the abstract idea itself, not an improvement to the computer or technology. The ability to generate a possibly optimal schedule faster would be an improvement to the scheduling output not how the underlying computer or physical production system is technically improved. The claimed technology operates in a conventional manner it is only the mathematical operations that are arguably changed. The speed of computation is not a technical improvement. The examiner notes that computational efficiency may allow the speed of receiving the result happen quicker, however, the use of a computer to perform the steps of an invention would inherently allow the abstract idea to be produced faster. This would not be an improvement to the underlying technology. Even a mathematical improvement would be an improvement to the math and not to the technical components implementing the mathematical concept. The specification does not disclose any improvement to a processor architecture, memory management, or any technical aspect of the computing system. Any improvement to a mathematical concept is an improvement to the abstract idea. Further, reducing the number of times a production line switches between product models is an operation efficiency outcome at best and arguably be a benefit realized downstream of the claimed method, not a technical improvement to the scheduling system. Applicants invention is directed to faster scheduling, fewer switch lines, which are improvements to the abstract idea of the scheduling process not the technical components.
The applicant has argued “The Applicant respectfully submits that, through the steps in claim 1, the claimed intelligent scheduling method is able to quickly and timely feedback the optimal work order assignment plan. Additionally, the production line switching counts may be reduced to improve the utilization rate of production capacity and the cost of indirect labor (IDL) may be saved. Thus, the recited claim elements add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present. The Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of claimed elements amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea, and thus should be patent eligible under step 2B.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed additional elements of claim 1 recite a processor, work order modules, and an output device. None of these elements, individually or in combination, amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. The processor, storage, and output device are generic computing components that perform entirely conventional functions. The modules are purely functional claim elements that define what is computed not how the computing is technically accomplished in any non-conventional way. The Federal Courts have consistently held that reciting generic computer components to implement an abstract idea does not supply an inventive concept. The hardware and software elements are generic and conventional. The previous 101 rejection is updated in view of applicant’s amendments and are maintained.
The applicant has argued a newly amended limitation to the claims in view of the previous 103 rejection. An updated search was conducted and an updated prior art rejection is below.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17, stand unrejected in their entirety.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed to a method, claims 10, 12-18 are directed to a system, and claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Therefore, claims 1-10, 12-19 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite a scheduling production plans, constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals including social activities and a “Mathematical Concept” related to a mathematical calculation. Claim 1 recites abstract limitations including “A. assigning a plurality of work orders …respectively through the work order assignment…, wherein step A comprises step A1 and step A2, in step A1, executing an assignment model comprises: based on a first objective function, satisfying a plurality of first limiting conditions, assigning each of work orders whose weight conforming to a priority work order weight set …, and obtaining a priority work order assignment plan, and in step A2, executing a production line switching counts optimization model comprises: based on a second objective function, satisfying a plurality of second limiting conditions, limiting a … switching count …; step B. performing a form batch for the work orders assigned to each of the …lines through the work order form batching…, the work orders are divided into a plurality of work order groups; C. solving for each of the work orders comprised in each batch of each … through the work order detailed scheduling …to obtain a schedule plan, wherein the schedule plan comprises a … line assigned for each of the work orders and an operation sequence; and D. transmitting the schedule plan...” Claim 10 recites abstract limitations including “execute the work order assignment module to assign a plurality of work orders to one … respectively, wherein the processor executes the work order assignment module to: execute an assignment model, which comprises: based on a first objective function, satisfying a plurality of first limiting conditions, assigning each of work orders in a priority work order weight set …, and obtaining a priority work order assignment plan; and execute a production line switching counts optimization model, which comprises: based on a second objective function, satisfying a plurality of second limiting conditions, limiting a production line switching count …; execute the work order form batching … to perform a form batch for the work orders assigned to each of the … lines, the work orders are divided into a plurality of work order groups; execute the work order detailed scheduling …, solving for each of the work orders comprised in each batch of each of the … lines to obtain a schedule plan, wherein the schedule plan comprises a.. line assigned for each of the work orders and an operation sequence; and transmit the schedule plan... to process the work orders according to the obtained schedule plan.” Claim 19 recites abstract limitations including “assigning a plurality of work orders to one of a plurality of … lines respectively through a work order assignment …; wherein the step of assigning a plurality of work orders …respectively comprises: executing an assignment model, which comprises: based on a first objective function, satisfying a plurality of first limiting conditions, assigning each of work orders in a priority work order weight set …, and obtaining a priority work order assignment plan; and executing … switching counts optimization model, which comprises: based on a second objective function, satisfying a plurality of second limiting conditions, limiting a production line switching count of each …performing a form batch for the work orders assigned to each of the …lines through a work order form batching …, the work orders are divided into a plurality of work order groups; solving for each of the work orders comprised in each batch of each of the … lines through a work order detailed scheduling … to obtain a schedule plan, wherein the schedule plan comprises a … line assigned for each of the work orders and an operation sequence; and transmitting the schedule plan… according to the obtained schedule plan.” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the language of “a processor,” covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the “a processor” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to “Mathematical Concept” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Dependent claims 8, 14, 17, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 12-13, 15-16, 18 will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a method comprising “a processor to execute a work order assignment module, a work order form batching module and a work order detailed scheduling module, an output device and controlling the plurality of production lines a plurality of production lines.” Claim 10 is a system that recites limitations performed “a storage, which stores a workorder assignment module, a workorder form batching module, and a work order detailed scheduling module; an output device; and a processor, which is coupled to the storage, an output device, and control the plurality of production lines….” Claim 19 further recites the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for storing a program code which, executed by a processor, an output device... and controlling the plurality of production lines to process the work orders.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, execute, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 8, 14, 17, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2, introduce the additional elements of “fixtures”, “production lines.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 3, introduces the additional element of “fixtures”, “a user interface” and “production lines.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 4, 13, introduces the additional element of “a user interface.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 5-7, 9, 15, 16, 18, introduce the additional element of “production lines.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 12, introduces the additional element of “a user interface” and “production lines.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Claim 1 is a method comprising “a processor to execute a work order assignment module, a work order form batching module and a work order detailed scheduling module, an output device and controlling the plurality of production lines a plurality of production lines.” Claim 10 is a system that recites limitations performed “a storage, which stores a workorder assignment module, a workorder form batching module, and a work order detailed scheduling module; an output device; and a processor, which is coupled to the storage, an output device, and control the plurality of production lines….” Claim 19 further recites the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for storing a program code which, executed by a processor, an output device... and controlling the plurality of production lines to process the work orders.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, execute, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concept) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 8, 14, 17, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 2, introduce the additional element of “production lines” and “fixtures.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concept) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 3, introduces the additional element of “fixtures”, “a user interface” and “production lines.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concept) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 4, 13, introduces the additional element of “a user interface.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concept) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 5-7, 9, 15, 16, 18, introduce the additional element of “production lines.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concept) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 12, introduces the additional element of “a user interface” and “production lines.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concept) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-10, 12-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12-15, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imoto (JP 5380350 B2) in view of Treichler et al. (US 20070050069 A1) in view of Healey et al. (US 20110046772 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Imoto teaches an intelligent scheduling method, which utilizes a processor to execute a work order assignment module, a work order form batching module and a work order detailed scheduling module (pg. 7, discloses using the load level of the batch processing equipment as an evaluation item (index) when creating a batch processing group, for example, only orders with high priority of a specific batch processing equipment are targeted. Even in this case, it is possible to create a batch processing group that avoids an increase in the load on a specific facility by increasing the load leveling between a plurality of batch processing facilities. Pg. 8, Such production lines include, for example, production lines of material factories such as steel, copper plates, and aluminum plates. About a batch processing process, the batch annealing process of an intermediate process, etc. correspond. However, the production line to which the production schedule planning apparatus is applied is not limited to this, and can be applied to production lines for various products in various industries. discloses production schedule planning device is able to properly place orders in the processing unit of the batch processing equipment while realizing the load leveling of each batch processing equipment in a production line having a plurality of batch processing equipment with greatly different capacities. Realize the order summary function… this production schedule planning device determines the order entry (first process) schedule, considering not only the productivity of the batch process but also the productivity of the first process when placing an order on the production line. The first process schedule planning function is realized.)
assigning a plurality of work orders to one of a plurality of production lines respectively through the work order assignment module wherein step A comprises step A1 and step A2 (Imoto discloses assigning orders to processing facilities and scheduling according to delivery dates and setup conditions. pg. 3, discloses the batch processing group creation device 3 assigns all orders to the batch processing equipment according to the priorities described in Table 1. Then, the batch processing group creation device 3 creates a batch processing group according to the processable amount of the batch processing facility described in Table 3 and the batch processing groupable pattern described in Table 1. Furthermore, the batch processing group creation device 3 evaluates the created batch processing group. If a batch processing group with a high evaluation value can be created, the batch processing group creation device 3 stores it and proceeds to the next step… In the batch processing group creation device 3, first, the batch processing facility determining unit 31 determines a batch processing facility for processing each order. In this processing facility determination, there is a method of using a priority for each order (see Table 1) given in advance. Next, the batch processing group creation unit 32 groups orders assigned to each equipment according to the capacity of the equipment to create a batch processing group. As a batch processing group creation method here, there is a method such as collecting orders with close delivery dates. The batch processing group created in this way is evaluated by the batch processing group creation result evaluation unit 33. Then, the batch processing group result is stored together with the evaluation value by the batch processing group creation result storage unit 34. Pg. 6, Each order is assigned to a batch processing facility by determining a plurality of batch processing facilities from a plurality of batch processing facilities. Next, the batch processing group creation unit creates a batch processing group by grouping in accordance with the capacity of the batch processing equipment (processing unit of the batch processing equipment) included in the operation conditions given in advance. In addition, when the operation conditions given in advance include, for example, conditions for batch processing for each order, grouping can also be performed with reference to the conditions. Pg. 10. Imoto’s work order assignment process proceeds in two identifiable stages (grouping and load leveling));
Step B. performing a form batch for the work orders assigned to each of the production lines through the work order form batching module, the work orders are divided into a plurality of work order groups (pg. 10-11, discloses dividing the batching groups by orders. For example, when the assigned orders are sorted in order of delivery date for equipment A, order A → order D → order G → order M → order N (* When the delivery date is the same, sort by order number). Further, according to Table 3,the facility A can process 10 units of orders in one batch process. Thereby, when the batch processing group creation device 3 creates a batch processing group for the equipment A. Pg. 6, Each order is assigned to a batch processing facility by determining a plurality of batch processing facilities from a plurality of batch processing facilities. Next, the batch processing group creation unit creates a batch processing group by grouping in accordance with the capacity of the batch processing equipment (processing unit of the batch processing equipment) included in the operation conditions given in advance. In addition, when the operation conditions given in advance include, for example, conditions for batch processing for each order, grouping can also be performed with reference to the conditions.);
solving for each of the work orders comprised in each batch of each of the production lines through the work order detailed scheduling module to obtain a schedule plan, wherein the schedule plan comprises a production line assigned for each of the work orders and an operation sequence; and (pg. 9, discloses the first process schedule creation device 4 sets each stored batch processing group as one unit, based on the order delivery date shown in Table 1 and the setup conditions in the first process shown in Table 2. Determine the sequence of steps. And the 1st process schedule preparation apparatus 4 determines the processing time zone of each order based on the unit processing time of the 1st process of Table 4, and creates the schedule of a 1st process. Furthermore, the first process schedule creation device 4 evaluates the created first process schedule, and if a first process schedule with a high evaluation value can be created, saves it. Pg. 9-10 also discloses schedule planning);
transmitting the schedule plan to an output device and controlling the plurality of production lines to process the work orders according to the obtained schedule plan (pg. 12-13, discloses outputting the final schedule. Including processing. Pg. 9-10, discloses an input/output interface).
Imoto does not specifically teach all the steps of A1.
However, Treichler teaches in step A1, executing an assignment model comprises: based on a first objective function, satisfying a plurality of first limiting conditions, assigning each of work orders whose weight conforming to a priority work order weight set to one of the production lines, and obtaining a priority work order assignment plan (¶ 11-12, 24-25, Fig. 2A, discloses a linear programming engine that executes against a formally decided objective function to drive all order decisions. ¶ 30, 33, 39-41, 49, discloses the linear programing engine is constrained by multiple conditions including non-negative inventory, no-early shipment, must-fill override, and a customer category priority. ¶ 35, 12, 66, Fig. 4, discloses a table of customer priority weights assigned to each order. ¶ 50, 29, 51, discloses a linear problem engine that assigns each work order to a destination and to an assembler, acting like a production line. ¶ 24, 29, 38, 59-64, Fig. 1, 4, discloses the linear processing engine produces a complete prioritized shipment schedule that is passed downstream to a processing module, is consolidated and uploaded to a scheduling file. The output is a priority work order assignment plan.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Imoto to include/perform assigning each of work orders whose weight conforming to a priority work order weight set to one of the production lines, as taught/suggested by Treichler. This known technique is applicable to the system of Imoto as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to product scheduling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Treichler would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Treichler to the teachings of Imoto would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such weight conforming features into similar systems. Further, applying assigning each of work orders whose weight conforming to a priority work order weight set to one of the production lines would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow clear workload distribution, reduced downtime, and a more streamlined allocation.
Imoto does not specifically teach all the steps of A2.
However, Healey teaches step A2, executing a production line switching counts optimization model comprises: based on a second objective function, satisfying a plurality of second limiting conditions, limiting a production line switching count of each of the production lines (¶ 16-20, discloses the cost of changing over from one product to another. ¶ 24, discloses enabling production without having a changeover (switching). ¶ 40, 47-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Imoto to include/perform limiting a production line switching count of each of the production lines, as taught/suggested by Healey. This known technique is applicable to the system of Imoto as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to producing products. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Healey would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Healey to the teachings of Imoto would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such production line switching features into similar systems. Further, applying limiting a production line switching count of each of the production lines would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for fewer downtimes and set up times.
Regarding claim 4, Imoto discloses wherein after displaying the feedback information on the user interface, the method further comprising: re-adjusting the priority work order weight set through the user interface, and re- executing the priority weight evaluation model (pg. 10, discloses giving priority to a delivery date order. Pg. 3, 6, discloses giving a priority to each order. Pg. 7, discloses priorities and recreation of models. ; wherein, the feedback information shows work orders in the priority work order weight set that are unable to be assigned. Pg. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Imoto discloses a calculation step of a first stage, which comprises: the production lines are categorized into a first category set and a second category set, wherein a model set that is assigned into a production line of the first category set does not need to be switched to another production line, a model set assigned to a production line in the second category set needs to be switched to another production line (pg. 12-13, discloses the change cost calculation and the change cost of changing the order of the batch processing groups.);
the model sets comprised in each of the first category set and the second category set are sorted in a non-increasing sequence based on their own representative weight (pg. 12-13, discloses the change cost calculation and the change cost of changing the order of the batch processing groups.);
wherein for the first category set, based on a sorted result of each of the model sets, a scheduled start time and a scheduled completion time of each of the model sets comprised in the first category set are calculated based on an operable time of each of the production lines and a production time of each of the model sets in sequence (pg. 5, discloses details about the production plan in view of a processing completion time. pg. 12-13, discloses the change cost calculation and the change cost of changing the order of the batch processing groups.);
and wherein for the second category set, based on a sorted result of each of the model sets, a scheduled start time and a scheduled completion time of each of the model sets comprised in the second category set are calculated based on the operable time of each of the production lines, a production line switching time of switching one model set to another model set and the production time of each of the model sets in sequence (pg. 5, discloses details about the production plan in view of a processing completion time, pg. 12-13, discloses the change cost calculation and the change cost of changing the order of the batch processing groups.).
Regarding claim 9, Imoto discloses wherein the schedule plan comprises a batch scheduling report data and a work order scheduling report data, the batch schedule report data is provided to assign a scheduled start time and a scheduled completion time corresponding to each batch number in a model set to which each of a production line belongs (pg. 5, discloses details about schedule creation methods including start/end times. Pg. 6, discloses the production batch processing process. pg. 9, 13, discloses outputting the data at the end of the process. pg. 8, discloses batch number data.);
the work order scheduling report data is provided to assign a scheduled start time and a scheduled completion time corresponding to each work order number in each batch number in the model set to which each of the production line belongs (pg. 5, discloses details about schedule creation methods including start/end times. Pg. 6, discloses the production batch processing process. pg. 9, 13, discloses outputting the data at the end of the process. pg. 8, discloses batch number data).
Regarding claim 10, Imoto teaches a storage, which stores a workorder assignment module, a workorder form batching module, and a work order detailed scheduling module; an output device; and a processor, which is coupled to the storage and the output device (pg. 9, discloses a computer having a CPU, output devices, and storage. Pg. 13);
execute the work order assignment module to assign a plurality of work orders to one of a plurality of production lines respectively, wherein the processor executes the work order assignment module (pg. 7, discloses using the load level of the batch processing equipment as an evaluation item (index) when creating a batch processing group, for example, only orders with high priority of a specific batch processing equipment are targeted. Even in this case, it is possible to create a batch processing group that avoids an increase in the load on a specific facility by increasing the load leveling between a plurality of batch processing facilities. Pg. 8, Such production lines include, for example, production lines of material factories such as steel, copper plates, and aluminum plates. About a batch processing process, the batch annealing process of an intermediate process, etc. correspond. However, the production line to which the production schedule planning apparatus is applied is not limited to this, and can be applied to production lines for various products in various industries. discloses production schedule planning device is able to properly place orders in the processing unit of the batch processing equipment while realizing the load leveling of each batch processing equipment in a production line having a plurality of batch processing equipment with greatly different capacities. Realize the order summary function… this production schedule planning device determines the order entry (first process) schedule, considering not only the productivity of the batch process but also the productivity of the first process when placing an order on the production line. The first process schedule planning function is realized.)
execute the work order form batching module to perform a form batch for the work orders assigned to each of the production lines, the work orders are divided into a plurality of work order groups (pg. 3, discloses the batch processing group creation device 3 assigns all orders to the batch processing equipment according to the priorities described in Table 1. Then, the batch processing group creation device 3 creates a batch processing group according to the processable amount of the batch processing facility described in Table 3 and the batch processing groupable pattern described in Table 1. Furthermore, the batch processing group creation device 3 evaluates the created batch processing group. If a batch processing group with a high evaluation value can be created, the batch processing group creation device 3 stores it and proceeds to the next step… In the batch processing group creation device 3, first, the batch processing facility determining unit 31 determines a batch processing facility for processing each order. In this processing facility determination, there is a method of using a priority for each order (see Table 1) given in advance. Next, the batch processing group creation unit 32 groups orders assigned to each equipment according to the capacity of the equipment to create a batch processing group. As a batch processing group creation method here, there is a method such as collecting orders with close delivery dates. The batch processing group created in this way is evaluated by the batch processing group creation result evaluation unit 33. Then, the batch processing group result is stored together with the evaluation value by the batch processing group creation result storage unit 34. Pg. 6, Each order is assigned to a batch processing facility by determining a plurality of batch processing facilities from a plurality of batch processing facilities. Next, the batch processing group creation unit creates a batch processing group by grouping in accordance with the capacity of the batch processing equipment (processing unit of the batch processing equipment) included in the operation conditions given in advance. In addition, when the operation conditions given in advance include, for example, conditions for batch processing for each order, grouping can also be performed with reference to the conditions. Pg. 10);
performing a form batch for the work orders assigned to each of the production lines through the work order form batching module, the work orders are divided into a plurality of work order groups (pg. 10-11, discloses dividing the batching groups by orders. For example, when the assigned orders are sorted in order of delivery date for equipment A, order A → order D → order G → order M → order
N (* When the delivery date is the same, sort by order number). Further, according to Table 3,the facility A can process 10 units of orders in one batch process. Thereby, when the batch processing group creation device 3 creates a batch processing group for the equipment A. Pg. 6, Each order is assigned to a batch processing facility by determining a plurality of batch processing facilities from a plurality of batch processing facilities. Next, the batch processing group creation unit creates a batch processing group by grouping in accordance with the capacity of the batch processing equipment (processing unit of the batch processing equipment) included in the operation conditions given in advance. In addition, when the operation conditions given in advance include, for example, conditions for batch processing for each order, grouping can also be performed with reference to the conditions.);
execute the work order detailed scheduling module, solving for each of the work orders comprised in each batch of each of the production lines to obtain a schedule plan, wherein the schedule plan comprises a production line assigned for each of the work orders and an operation sequence (pg. 9, discloses the first process schedule creation device 4 sets each stored batch processing group as one unit, based on the order delivery date shown in Table 1 and the setup conditions in the first process shown in Table 2. Determine the sequence of steps. And the 1st process schedule preparation apparatus 4 determines the processing time zone of each order based on the unit processing time of the 1st process of Table 4, and creates the schedule of a 1st process. Furthermore, the first process schedule creation device 4 evaluates the created first process schedule, and if a first process schedule with a high evaluation value can be created, saves it. Pg. 9-10 also discloses schedule planning);
transmit the schedule plan to the output device and control the plurality of production lines to process the work orders according to the obtained schedule plan (pg. 12-13, discloses outputting the final schedule. Including processing. Pg. 9-10, discloses an input/output interface).
Imoto does not specifically teach all the steps of claimed execute of an assignment model.
However, Treichler teaches execute an assignment model, which comprises: based on a first objective function, satisfying a plurality of first limiting conditions, assigning each of work orders in a priority work order weight set to one of the production lines, and obtaining a priority work order assignment plan (¶ 11-12, 24-25, Fig. 2A, discloses a linear programming engine that executes against a formally decided objective function to drive all order decisions. ¶ 30, 33, 39-41, 49, discloses the linear programing engine is constrained by multiple conditions including non-negative inventory, no-early shipment, must-fill override, and a customer category priority. ¶ 35, 12, 66, Fig. 4, discloses a table of customer priority weights assigned to each order. ¶ 50, 29, 51, discloses a linear problem engine that assigns each work order to a destination and to an assembler, acting like a production line. ¶ 24, 29, 38, 59-64, Fig. 1, 4, discloses the linear processing engine produces a complete prioritized shipment schedule that is passed downstream to a processing module, is consolidated and uploaded to a scheduling file. The output is a priority work order assignment plan.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Imoto to include/perform assigning each of work orders whose weight conforming to a priority work order weight set to one of the production lines, as taught/suggested by Treichler. This known technique is applicable to the system of Imoto as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to product scheduling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Treichler would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Treichler to the teachings of Imoto would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such weight conforming features into similar systems. Further, applying assigning each of work orders whose weight conforming to a priority work order weight set to one of the production lines would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow clear workload distribution, reduced downtime, and a more streamlined allocation.
Imoto does not specifically teach execute a production line switching counts optimization model, which comprises: based on a second objective function, satisfying a plurality of second limiting conditions, limiting a production line switching count of each of the production lines.
However, Healey teaches execute a production line switching counts optimization model, which comprises: based on a second objective function, satisfying a plurality of second limiting conditions limiting a production line switching count of each of the production lines (¶ 16-20, discloses the cost of changing over from one product to another. ¶ 24, discloses enabling production without having a changeover (switching). ¶ 40, 47-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Imoto to include/perform limiting a production line switching count of each of the production lines, as taught/suggested by Healey. This known technique is applicable to the system of Imoto as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to producing products. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Healey would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Healey to the teachings of Imoto would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such production line switching features into similar systems. Further, applying limiting a production line switching count of each of the production lines would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for fewer downtimes and set up times.
Regarding claim 12, Imoto discloses wherein the processor executes a priority weight evaluation model of the work order assignment module to: based on a third objective function, satisfying a plurality of third limiting conditions, determine whether each of the work orders in the priority work order weight set is assigned to the corresponding production line (pg. 3, discloses batch processing according to priorities in Table 1. Pg. 6, discloses batch processing equipment allocation priority. Pg. 10-11, discloses priorities in relation to work orders. Pg. 12-13, discloses batch processing changes);
in response to each of the work orders in the priority work order weight set being assigned to the corresponding production line, execute the assignment model; and in response to at least one of the work orders in the priority work order weight set being unable to be assigned to the corresponding production line, display a feedback information on a user interface (pg. 3, discloses batch processing according to priorities in Table 1. Pg. 6, discloses batch processing equipment allocation priority. Pg. 10-11, discloses priorities in relation to work orders. Pg. 12-13, discloses batch processing changes).
Regarding claim 13, Imoto discloses re-adjust the priority work order weight set through the user interface, and re-execute the priority weight evaluation model; wherein the feedback information shows work orders in the priority work order weight set that are unable to be assigned (pg. 10, discloses giving priority to a delivery date order. Pg. 3, 6, discloses giving a priority to each order. Pg. 7, discloses priorities and recreation of models. Pg. 10, discloses assigned and unassigned orders. Pg. 9).
Regarding claim 14, Imoto discloses wherein the processor executes the work order form batching module to: based on a fourth objective function, and satisfying a plurality of fourth limiting conditions, perform form batching for a plurality of work orders among the work orders comprised in a plurality of batches with the same attribute into a work order group based an attribute of each of the work orders (pg. 5, discloses limitations to the process. Pg. 3, 6, discloses giving a priority to each order. Pg. 7, discloses priorities and recreation of models. Pg. 10, discloses assigned orders. pg. 3, discloses batch processing according to priorities in Table 1. Pg. 6, discloses batch processing equipment allocation priority. Pg. 10-11, discloses priorities in relation to work orders. Pg. 12-13, discloses batch processing changes).
Regarding claim 15, Imoto discloses categorize the production lines into a first category set and a second category set, wherein a model set that is assigned into a production line of the first category set does not need to be switched to another production line, a model set assigned to a production line in the second category set needs to be switched to another production line (pg. 12-13, discloses the change cost calculation and the change cost of changing the order of the batch processing groups.);
the model sets comprised in each of the first category set and the second category set 10are sorted in a non-increasing sequence based on their own representative weight (pg. 12-13, discloses the change cost calculation and the change cost of changing the order of the batch processing groups.);
wherein for the first category set, based on a sorted result of each of the model sets, a scheduled start time and a scheduled completion time of each of the model sets comprised in the first category set are calculated based on an operable time of each of the production lines and a production time of each of the model sets in sequence (pg. 5, discloses details about the production plan in view of a processing completion time. pg. 12-13, discloses the change cost calculation and the change cost of changing the order of the batch processing groups.);
and wherein for the second category set, based on a sorted result of each of the model sets, a scheduled start time and a scheduled completion time of each of the model sets comprised in the second category set are calculated based on the operable time of each of the production lines, a production line switching time of switching one model set to another model set and the production time of each of the model sets in sequence (pg. 5, discloses details about the production plan in view of a processing completion time, pg. 12-13, discloses the change cost calculation and the change cost of changing the order of the batch processing groups.).
Regarding claim 18, Imoto discloses wherein the schedule plan comprises a batch scheduling report data and a work order scheduling report data, the batch schedule report data is provided to assign a scheduled start time and a scheduled completion time corresponding to each batch number in a model set to which each of a production line belongs (pg. 5, discloses details about schedule creation methods including start/end times. Pg. 6, discloses the production batch processing process. pg. 9, 13, discloses outputting the data at the end of the process. pg. 8, discloses batch number data.);
the work order scheduling report data is provided to assign a scheduled start time and a scheduled completion time corresponding to each work order number in each batch number in the model set to which each of the production line belongs (pg. 5, discloses details about schedule creation methods including start/end times. Pg. 6, discloses the production batch processing process. pg. 9, 13, discloses outputting the data at the end of the process. pg. 8, discloses batch number data).
Regarding claim 19, Imoto teaches non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for storing a program code which, when executed by a processor, makes the processor to perform the following (pg. 9, discloses a computer having a CPU, output devices, and storage. Pg. 13);
assigning a plurality of work orders to one of a plurality of production lines respectively through the work order assignment module, wherein the step of assigning a plurality of work orders to one of a plurality of production lines respectively comprises (pg. 3, discloses the batch processing group creation device 3 assigns all orders to the batch processing equipment according to the priorities described in Table 1. Then, the batch processing group creation device 3 creates a batch processing group according to the processable amount of the batch processing facility described in Table 3 and the batch processing groupable pattern described in Table 1. Furthermore, the batch processing group creation device 3 evaluates the created batch processing group. If a batch processing group with a high evaluation value can be created, the batch processing group creation device 3 stores it and proceeds to the next step… In the batch processing group creation device 3, first, the batch processing facility determining unit 31 determines a batch processing facility for processing each order. In this processing facility determination, there is a method of using a priority for each order (see Table 1) given in advance. Next, the batch processing group creation unit 32 groups orders assigned to each equipment according to the capacity of the equipment to create a batch processing group. As a batch processing group creation method here, there is a method such as collecting orders with close delivery dates. The batch processing group created in this way is evaluated by the batch processing group creation result evaluation unit 33. Then, the batch processing group result is stored together with the evaluation value by the batch processing group creation result storage unit 34. Pg. 6, Each order is assigned to a batch processing facility by determining a plurality of batch processing facilities from a plurality of batch processing facilities. Next, the batch processing group creation unit creates a batch processing group by grouping in accordance with the capacity of the batch processing equipment (processing unit of the batch processing equipment) included in the operation conditions given in advance. In addition, when the operation conditions given in advance include, for example, conditions for batch processing for each order, grouping can also be performed with reference to the conditions. Pg. 10);
performing a form batch for the work orders assigned to each of the production lines through the work order form batching module, the work orders are divided into a plurality of work order groups (pg. 10-11, discloses dividing the batching groups by orders. For example, when the assigned orders are sorted in order of delivery date for equipment A, order A → order D → order G → order M → order
N (* When the delivery date is the same, sort by order number). Further, according to Table 3,the facility A can process 10 units of orders in one batch process. Thereby, when the batch processing group creation device 3 creates a batch processing group for the equipment A. Pg. 6, Each order is assigned to a batch processing facility by determining a plurality of batch processing facilities from a plurality of batch processing facilities. Next, the batch processing group creation unit creates a batch processing group by grouping in accordance with the capacity of the batch processing equipment (processing unit of the batch processing equipment) included in the operation conditions given in advance. In addition, when the operation conditions given in advance include, for example, conditions for batch processing for each order, grouping can also be performed with reference to the conditions.);
solving for each of the work orders comprised in each batch of each of the production lines through the work order detailed scheduling module to obtain a schedule plan, wherein the schedule plan comprises a production line assigned for each of the work orders and an operation sequence; and (pg. 9, discloses the first process schedule creation device 4 sets each stored batch processing group as one unit, based on the order delivery date shown in Table 1 and the setup conditions in the first process shown in Table 2. Determine the sequence of steps. And the 1st process schedule preparation apparatus 4 determines the processing time zone of each order based on the unit processing time of the 1st process of Table 4, and creates the schedule of a 1st process. Furthermore, the first process schedule creation device 4 evaluates the created first process schedule, and if a first process schedule with a high evaluation value can be created, saves it. Pg. 9-10 also discloses schedule planning);
transmitting the schedule plan to an output device and controlling the plurality of production lines to process the work orders according to the obtained schedule plan (pg. 12-13, discloses outputting the final schedule. Including processing. Pg. 9-10, discloses an input/output interface).
Imoto does not specifically teach all the steps of claimed execute of an assignment model.
However, Treichler teaches executing an assignment model, which comprises: based on a first objective function, satisfying a plurality of first limiting conditions, assigning each of work orders in a priority work order weight set to one of the production lines, and obtaining a priority work order assignment plan (¶ 11-12, 24-25, Fig. 2A, discloses a linear programming engine that executes against a formally decided objective function to drive all order decisions. ¶ 30, 33, 39-41, 49, discloses the linear programing engine is constrained by multiple conditions including non-negative inventory, no-early shipment, must-fill override, and a customer category priority. ¶ 35, 12, 66, Fig. 4, discloses a table of customer priority weights assigned to each order. ¶ 50, 29, 51, discloses a linear problem engine that assigns each work order to a destination and to an assembler, acting like a production line. ¶ 24, 29, 38, 59-64, Fig. 1, 4, discloses the linear processing engine produces a complete prioritized shipment schedule that is passed downstream to a processing module, is consolidated and uploaded to a scheduling file. The output is a priority work order assignment plan.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Imoto to include/perform assigning each of work orders whose weight conforming to a priority work order weight set to one of the production lines, as taught/suggested by Treichler. This known technique is applicable to the system of Imoto as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to product scheduling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Treichler would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Treichler to the teachings of Imoto would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such weight conforming features into similar systems. Further, applying assigning each of work orders whose weight conforming to a priority work order weight set to one of the production lines would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow clear workload distribution, reduced downtime, and a more streamlined allocation.
Imoto does not specifically teach execute a production line switching counts optimization model, which comprises: based on a second objective function, satisfying a plurality of second limiting conditions, limiting a production line switching count of each of the production lines.
However, Healey teaches executing a production line switching counts optimization model, which comprises: based on a second objective function, satisfying a plurality of second limiting conditions, limiting a production line switching count of each of the production lines (¶ 16-20, discloses the cost of changing over from one product to another. ¶ 24, discloses enabling production without having a changeover (switching). ¶ 40, 47-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Imoto to include/perform limiting a production line switching count of each of the production lines, as taught/suggested by Healey. This known technique is applicable to the system of Imoto as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to producing products. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Healey would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Healey to the teachings of Imoto would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such production line switching features into similar systems. Further, applying limiting a production line switching count of each of the production lines would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for fewer downtimes and set up times.
Other pertinent prior art includes Nakano et al. (US 20240036561 A1) which discloses a production line design device, a production line design. Quin et al. (US 20210335639 A1) which discloses batch processing for machines.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights