DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 11/10/2025 filling of Application 18/343,612.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9-10, 12-13, 17, and 20 are amended. Claims 5 and 16 are canceled. Claims 21-23 are new. Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-23 are now presented.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments files 11/10/2025 with respect to the prior art have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds of rejection that was necessitated by amendment.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “Similar to Trading Techs., the present claims are directed to a specific, structured graphical user interface that pairs functionality directly related to the graphical user interface's structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem. Accordingly, similar to Trading Techs., claims 1, 12, and 20 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner asserts that the fact pattern in Trading Technologies does not match the fact pattern in the instant case. For example, in Trading Technologies ’132 and ’304 patents describe and claim a method and system for the electronic trading of stocks, bonds, futures, options and similar products. The patents explain problems that arise when a trader attempts to enter an order at a particular price, but misses the price because the market moved before the order was entered and executed. It also sometimes occurred that trades were executed at different prices than intended, due to rapid market movement. The CAFC found that: The claims require a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art. The district court concluded that the patented subject matter meets the eligibility standards of Alice Step 1. We agree with this conclusion, for all of the reasons articulated by the district court, including that the graphical user interface system of these two patents is not an idea that has long existed, the threshold criterion of an abstract idea and ineligible concept and added that “the graphical user interface system of these two patents is not an idea that has long existed, the threshold criterion of an abstract idea and ineligible concept. In the instant case, the idea of task workflow modelling is an idea that has long existed.. As such, the instant case is not analogous to Trading Technologies as it is drawn to a an idea that has long existed and is an Abstract method of organizing human activity and include steps that can be performed mentally.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “First, claims 1, 12, and 20 recite generating a first user interface element in a GUI concurrently with presenting a first digital representation, or an unmodified representation of a set of tasks. The first interface element displays a value for a performance metric. Based on a user selection of the interface element, the claim recites modifying the representation of the set of tasks to reflect a new configuration of the tasks that is predicted to result in achieving the performance metric.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of displaying a value for a performance metric and modifying the representation of the set of tasks to reflect a new configuration of the tasks amounts to merely displaying the output or an abstract analysis. Display the result of an analysis is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to provide and in inventive concept.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “Second, claims 1, 12, and 20 recite using a machine learning model to determine a subset of performance metric values to present in a set of user interface elements that is presented together with a display of a first task configuration. These features recite an improvement in the functioning of the computer presenting the user interface (See Trading Techs., above) by providing a dynamic set of selectable interface elements for a user to reconfigure a set of tasks in a work environment.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the broadly recited machine learning attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. For example, the claims do not state how the machine learning model generates a recommendation corresponding to a subset of the performance metric values. As such, the broadly recited ML model does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further, the reconfiguring a set of tasks in a work environment amounts to an abstract method or organizing human activity.
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 1-4, 6-15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case, Claims 1-4, 6-11, 21-23 are directed toward a computer program product for generating, in a graphical user interface (GUI), a first digital representation of a first task schedule comprising a first configuration of a set of tasks to be performed at a plurality of work centers. Claims 12-15, 17-19 are directed toward a method for generating, in a graphical user interface (GUI), a first digital representation of a first task schedule comprising a first configuration of a set of tasks to be performed at a plurality of work centers. Claim 20 is directed toward a system for generating, in a graphical user interface (GUI), a first digital representation of a first task schedule comprising a first configuration of a set of tasks to be performed at a plurality of work centers. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of determining performance metrics corresponding to schedules which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
Generating a first representation of a first task schedule comprising a first configuration of a set of tasks to be performed at a plurality of work centers;
determining a first value for a first performance metric corresponding to the first task schedule, wherein the first performance metric specifies a qualitative measure of one or more characteristics associated with the first task schedule;
determining a second value for the first performance metric corresponding to a second task schedule comprising a second configuration of the set of tasks among the plurality of work centers;
determining that the second value is an improvement over the first value;
applying a model to a set of candidate alternate task schedules associated with a set of performance metric values to generate a recommendation corresponding to a subset of the performance metric values, from among the set of performance metric values, wherein the set of performance metric values includes the second value for the first performance metric;
responsive to receiving a first selection corresponding to the first element:
modifying a second representation of the second task schedule, wherein the second representation comprises one or more visual representations of one or more tasks that are modified relative to the first configuration of the set of tasks in the first representation.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
In the instant case, the steps determining first and second performance metrics according to tasks and generating representations of tasks schedules are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
The instant claims recite mental processes including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. For example, the steps directed to determining first and second performance metrics according to tasks; and applying a model to a set of schedules to generate a recommendation corresponding to a subset of the performance metric values are mental processes. Further, a human can generate the recited tasks schedules with the use of a pen and paper. There is nothing is nothing the claims that preclude these steps from being performed mentally. As such, the claims recite abstract ideas.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, causes performance of operations comprising the recited steps;
the use of a machine learning model;
a graphical user interface (GUI) to display digital representation of task schedules;
displaying in the GUI, concurrently with the first digital representation, a set of interface elements, wherein the set of interface elements displays the subset of the performance metric values, including a first user interface element displaying the second value for the first performance metric;
However, the processor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Further, the display of digital representations of schedules including a set of interface elements displaying the subset of the performance metric values amount to the display of information which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Further, the use of a machine learning model is indicative of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
In the instant case, the additional elements of the broadly recited machine learning attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. For example, the claims do not state how the machine learning model generates a recommendation corresponding to a subset of the performance metric values. As such, the broadly recited ML model does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The combination of the generic processor, the broadly recited machine learning, and the display of digital representations of schedules does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, similar to the analysis with respect to step 2A prong 2 recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished (the broadly recited machine learning) cannot provide an inventive concept under step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
The combination of the generic processor, the broadly recited machine learning, and display of digital representations of schedules does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide and inventive concept.
Further, Claims 2-4, 6-11, 21-23 further limit the mental processes and methods of organizing human activity already rejected in the parent claim, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 2-4, 6-11, 21-23 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. The presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a method, or apparatus for example, would be subject to the same analysis. As such, claims 12-15, 17-20 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahara US 2022/0147906 A1 in view of Mahmood US 2021/0280287 A1 in view of Volkov US 11,853,935 B2.
As per Claim 1 Kuwahara teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, causes performance of operations comprising: (see Kuwahara para. 56)
generating, in a graphical user interface (GUI), a first digital representation of a first task schedule comprising a first configuration of a set of tasks to be performed at; (Kuwahara para. 21 teaches with the work schedule creation system described in the above configuration (7), the standard work schedule and the improved work schedule are displayed side by side on the display unit, making it easier to visually confirm a difference between the standard work schedule and the improved work schedule which is made by application of the improvement measure. Therefore, it is possible to effectively support selection of the appropriate improvement measure in consideration of the influence on the work schedule of the inspection of the plant.)
determining, by a work environment management platform, a first value for a first performance metric corresponding to the first task schedule, wherein the first performance metric specifies a qualitative measure of one or more characteristics associated with the first task schedule; (Kuwahara abstract teaches A work schedule creation system which the Examiner considers to be a work environment management platform. Further, para. 63-64 teaches As shown in FIG. 3, the items N1 to N10 of the work places are associated with the items (N11 to N14 or other items) of the plurality of improvement measures, respectively. As shown in FIG. 4, the items CI to C6 of the work categories are associated with the items (N21 to N23 or other items) of the plurality of improvement measures, respectively. Moreover, as shown in FIGS. 3 and 4, the items (N1 to N14, N21 to N23, and the like) of the improvement measures are associated with the plurality of improvement effects (E1 to E4 and the like), respectively. In a part of the data structure illustrated in FIG. 3, as the items N1 to N10 of the work places, an enclosure, an insulation, a pipe, an inlet casing, an inlet manifold, a combustor, a compressor, a turbine, an exhaust, and a rotor are shown, respectively. Further, as the items N11 to N14 of the improvement measures capable of improving the work performed in inspection of the item N8 of the turbine, a bolt tensioner, a tension hanger, a high-frequency bolt heater, a blade-ring-form holder are shown, respectively. Furthermore, as the improvement effects by application of the bolt tensioner, the overview E1 of the effect of the improvement measure, the shortening effect E2 of the required period for work (for example, a reduced time, that is, an improved time of work by the improvement measure), the percentage E3 of schedule optimization, the improvement effect E4 of safety, and the like are shown, respectively. determining, by a work environment management platform, a second value for the first performance metric corresponding to a second task schedule comprising a second configuration of the set of tasks among the plurality of work centers; (Kuwahara para. 21 teaches with the work schedule creation system described in the above configuration (7), the standard work schedule and the improved work schedule are displayed side by side on the display unit, making it easier to visually confirm a difference between the standard work schedule and the improved work schedule which is made by application of the improvement measure. Therefore, it is possible to effectively support selection of the appropriate improvement measure in consideration of the influence on the work schedule of the inspection of the plant.)
determining that the second value is an improvement over the first value; Para. 21 teaches with the work schedule creation system described in the above configuration (7), the standard work schedule and the improved work schedule are displayed side by side on the display unit, making it easier to visually confirm a difference between the standard work schedule and the improved work schedule which is made by application of the improvement measure. Therefore, it is possible to effectively support selection of the appropriate improvement measure in consideration of the influence on the work schedule of the inspection of the plant.)
displaying in the GUI, concurrently with the first digital representation, a set of interface elements, wherein the set of interface elements displays the subset of the performance metric values, including a first user interface element displaying the second value for the first performance metric; (Kuwahara para. 74-75 teaches If the input unit 6 selects the application button B4 in S108, in S109, the improved schedule creation unit 16 creates an improved work schedule TI obtained by improving the standard work schedule T0. In S109, the improved schedule creation unit 16 creates the improved work schedule T1 based on the standard work schedule T0 and shortening effect information indicating a shortening effect of the required period for work by application of the improvement measure in the item selected by the input unit 6 from among the items of the plurality of improvement measures (for example, information indicating the above-described shortening effect E2). Then, the display control unit 14 executes the improved schedule display mode of displaying the improved work schedule T1 created by the improved schedule creation unit 16 on the display unit 4. In the example shown in FIG. 13, the display control unit 14 displays the improved work schedule T1 created by the improved schedule creation unit 16 and the standard work schedule T0 side by side for comparison on the display unit 4 in the improved schedule display mode. Moreover, as shown in FIG. 13, the display control unit 14 may display, on the display unit 4, days Δt of schedule optimization (a shortening effect of a required period for periodic inspection by the improved work schedule, relative to a required period for periodic inspection in the standard work schedule), in the improved schedule display mode. On a screen P6 of the improved schedule display mode shown in FIG. 13, each black bar chart indicates the standard work schedule, each hatched bar chart (chart indicating the work period of the turbine) indicates a portion of the improved work schedule where the required period for work can be shortened relative to the standard work schedule, and each while bar chart indicates a portion of the improved work schedule where work is accelerated by an influence of the above-described portion where the required period can be shortened.)
and responsive to receiving a first selection corresponding to the first user interface element: (Kuwahara para. 90-91-93 teaches Further, in the improved schedule display mode, the standard work schedule and the improved work schedule are displayed side by side on the display unit 4, making it easier to visually confirm a difference between the standard work schedule and the improved work schedule which is made by application of the improvement measure. Therefore, it is possible to effectively support selection of the appropriate improvement measure in consideration of the influence on the work schedule of periodic inspection of the plant.
Moreover, an actual required period for periodic inspection of the plant differs from user to user of the plant and often does not coincide with an initial value of the required period for the periodic inspection in the standard work schedule. In this regard, according to the above-described portable information terminal 2, the standard schedule correction unit corrects, based on the required period for the periodic inspection input from the input unit 6, the standard work schedule to be compressed or decompressed in accordance with the user. Thus, it is possible to create and display the appropriate improved work schedule suitable for an actual situation of the user based on the corrected standard work schedule. Therefore, it is possible to effectively support selection of the appropriate improvement measure in consideration of the influence on the work schedule of periodic inspection of the plant.
Further, in the selected improvement measure display mode, the item of the selected improvement measure is highlighted, allowing the user to easily grasp the selected improvement measure. Thus, for example, in the case where the plurality of improvement measures are selected, it is possible to easily consider the influence of the selected improvement measures on the work schedule of the periodic inspection. Therefore, it is possible to effectively support selection of the appropriate improvement measure in consideration of the influence on the work schedule of periodic inspection of the plant.
Further, in the selected improvement measure display mode, the presence or absence of the highlight for the item of the improvement measure can be changed in accordance with the operation of the input unit 6, allowing the user to easily grasp the selected improvement measure. Thus, for example, in the case where the plurality of improvement measures are selected, it is possible to easily consider the influence of the selected improvement measures on the work schedule of the periodic inspection. Therefore, it is possible to effectively support selection of the appropriate improvement measure in consideration of the influence on the work schedule of periodic inspection of the plant.
Modifying, by a work environment management platform, a display of the GUI to generate a second digital representation of the second task schedule, wherein the second digital representation comprises one or more visual representations of one or more tasks that are modified relative to the first configuration of the set of tasks in the first digital representation. Kuwahara para. 74 teaches if the input unit 6 selects the application button B4 in S108, in S109, the improved schedule creation unit 16 creates an improved work schedule TI obtained by improving the standard work schedule T0. In S109, the improved schedule creation unit 16 creates the improved work schedule T1 based on the standard work schedule T0 and shortening effect information indicating a shortening effect of the required period for work by application of the improvement measure in the item selected by the input unit 6 from among the items of the plurality of improvement measures (for example, information indicating the above-described shortening effect E2). Then, the display control unit 14 executes the improved schedule display mode of displaying the improved work schedule T1 created by the improved schedule creation unit 16 on the display unit 4. In the example shown in FIG. 13, the display control unit 14 displays the improved work schedule T1 created by the improved schedule creation unit 16 and the standard work schedule T0 side by side for comparison on the display unit 4 in the improved schedule display mode.
Kuwahara does not explicitly disclose a plurality of work centers. However, Mahmood para. 156 teaches in an aspect, distributed scheduling system 103 in implementation 600 can employ load balancing engine module 140-1 to balance capacity loads across a distributed array of manufacturing sites. As such, load balancing engine module 140-1 in connection with distributed scheduling engine module 110-1 can balance scheduling activities to satisfy available capacity slots at each respective site for a particular date based on estimations of time intervals corresponding to each capacity slot (e.g., time interval required to complete each intermediary manufacturing step) for manufacturing activities on particular dates and corresponding capacity during such time durations. Accordingly, load balancing engine module 140-1 can accomplish scheduling and capacity load balancing operations by executing estimation module 610, attribute identification module 620, and load balancing module 630. Both Kuwahara and Mahmood are directed to scheduling tasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kuwahara to include a plurality of work centers as taught by Mahmood to balance capacity loads across a distributed array of manufacturing sites (see para. 156).
Kuwahara does not teach applying a machine learning model to a set of candidate alternate task schedules associated with a set of performance metric values to generate a recommendation corresponding to a subset of the performance metric values, from among the set of performance metric values, wherein the set of performance metric values includes the second value for the first performance metric; However, Volkov column 12 lines 25-70 teach At step 830, the training data may be used to build one or more machine learning models to perform at least one task in the workflow. The machine learning model may be based on a particular use case, such as automating the task, splitting the task, re-configuring parameters for the task, etc.
At step 840, a workflow alteration forecast may be determined to assess the outcome of a second set of iterations of the workflow using one or more of the machine learning models. The forecast may include a cost-benefit analysis regarding implementation of different workflow alterations. As discussed above, the feasibility of any workflow alteration strategy may depend on various internal and external project factors, such as the complexity of the task, the minimal required accuracy level, the amount of the project that remains incomplete, and the like.
At step 850, a recommendation is provided based on the forecast. The recommendation may include a particular task in a workflow to automate, split, or otherwise modify. In certain embodiments, the recommendation may include an improvement in an automated or human task.
At step 860, in cases where automation of a task is recommended, an automated process may be generated to handle automation for at least a portion of the task. Parameters may be specified and/or generated for the task to be automated. Both Kuwahara and Volkov are directed to optimized task performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kuwahara to include applying a machine learning model to a set of candidate alternate task schedules associated with a set of performance metric values to generate a recommendation corresponding to a subset of the performance metric values, from among the set of performance metric values, wherein the set of performance metric values includes the second value for the first performance metric as taught by Volkov to increase efficiency and/or accuracy and decrease costs associated with completing tasks (see column 8, lines 25-50).
As per Claim 2 Kuwahara teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein determining the second value for the first performance metric includes: determining a first duration of time to complete a first subset of tasks at a first work center; and determining a second duration of time, different from the first duration of time, to complete the first subset of tasks. Kuwahara para. 72 teaches next, in S104, if the input unit 6 selects any one of the items of the improvement measures from among the items N11 to N14 of the plurality of improvement measures displayed in the improvement measure by work place display mode, the display control unit 14 executes the improvement effect display mode in S105. As shown in FIG. 11, in the improvement effect display mode, regarding the item selected in S104, the details of the improvement measure including the effects E1 to E4 of the improvement measure are displayed on the display unit 4. The effects of the improvement measure here may include the overview E1 of the effect of the improvement measure, the shortening effect E2 of the required period for work (for example, the reduced time of work by the improvement measure), the percentage E3 of schedule optimization, and the improvement effect E4 of safety, as shown in FIG. 11, for example.
Kuwahara does not explicitly disclose at a second work center. However, Mahmood para. 156 teaches in an aspect, distributed scheduling system 103 in implementation 600 can employ load balancing engine module 140-1 to balance capacity loads across a distributed array of manufacturing sites. As such, load balancing engine module 140-1 in connection with distributed scheduling engine module 110-1 can balance scheduling activities to satisfy available capacity slots at each respective site for a particular date based on estimations of time intervals corresponding to each capacity slot (e.g., time interval required to complete each intermediary manufacturing step) for manufacturing activities on particular dates and corresponding capacity during such time durations. Accordingly, load balancing engine module 140-1 can accomplish scheduling and capacity load balancing operations by executing estimation module 610, attribute identification module 620, and load balancing module 630. Both Kuwahara and Mahmood are directed to scheduling tasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kuwahara to include a second work center as taught by Mahmood to balance capacity loads across a distributed array of manufacturing sites (see para. 156).
As per Claim 4 Kuwahara does not teach The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, wherein determining the second duration of time is based on at least one of: a qualification of a worker at the second work center; an availability of materials to the second work center; and a configuration of a piece of equipment at the second work center. However, Mahmood para. 7 teaches furthermore, identifying a scheduling date and time not only depends on the above factors, but also on the estimated duration of activities (e.g., time for collecting the sample) and such duration can vary based on additional factors such as the patient (e.g., health conditions, special needs, etc.) and the type of collection (e.g., tumor sample collection) and therapy. For instance, during a tumor sample collection, the actual duration of collection is unknown a-priori. As such, there are several levels of complexity required for consideration in order to effectuate an efficacious scheduling regime. Other areas of complexity include the consideration of courier scheduling dependencies (e.g., courier availability and efficiency in a particular region and with respect to a particular route), manufacturing site dependencies (e.g., availability to manufacture a particular product during a particular time slot in which the collected material arrives, existence of manufacturing capacity and particular raw materials such as AAV vectors as well as availability of qualified technicians to manufacture the product), and infusion site dependencies (e.g., patient condition and availability when product arrives at infusion site, physician and qualified staff availability, resource availability, etc.). Accordingly, several scheduling challenges exist. Both Kuwahara and Mahmood are directed to scheduling tasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kuwahara to include wherein determining the second duration of time is based on at least one of: a qualification of a worker at the second work center; an availability of materials to the second work center; and a configuration of a piece of equipment at the second work center as taught by Mahmood to balance capacity loads across a distributed array of manufacturing sites (see para. 156).
As per Claim 6 Kuwahara teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein modifying the display of the GUI to generate the second digital representation of the second configuration of the set of tasks to be performed at the plurality of work centers comprises at least one of: moving a particular digital representation of a particular task from one day to another day; and moving the particular digital representation of the particular task from one work center to another work center. (See Kuwahara Fig. 13 that shows moving tasks to different days in the optimized work schedule. For example item N1 is moved from T0 to T1 on the schedule)
As per Claim 7 Kuwahara teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: subsequent to generating the second digital representation, receiving a second selection; and responsive to receiving the second selection: transmitting a set of instructions to implement the second configuration of the set of tasks. Kuwahara para. 74 teaches if the input unit 6 selects the application button B4 in S108, in S109, the improved schedule creation unit 16 creates an improved work schedule TI obtained by improving the standard work schedule T0. In S109, the improved schedule creation unit 16 creates the improved work schedule T1 based on the standard work schedule T0 and shortening effect information indicating a shortening effect of the required period for work by application of the improvement measure in the item selected by the input unit 6 from among the items of the plurality of improvement measures (for example, information indicating the above-described shortening effect E2).
Kuwahara does not teach transmitting a set of instructions to the plurality of work centers However, Mahmood para. 166 teaches At reference numeral 810, a client device accesses a distributed scheduling system. At reference numeral 820, the client device transmits a query analysis to the distributed scheduling system to perform a scheduling operation. At reference numeral 830, the distributed scheduling system receives a dynamic schedule analysis including one or more insights associated with a trigger event. At reference numeral 840, a display module outputs a scheduling interface effective to render content associated with the scheduling operation and actuate controls associated with augmentation of the scheduling operation. Both Kuwahara and Mahmood are directed to scheduling tasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kuwahara to include transmitting a set of instructions to the plurality of work centers as taught by Mahmood to balance capacity loads across a distributed array of manufacturing sites (see para. 156).
As per Claim 11 Kuwahara teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining a third value for a second performance metric corresponding to a third configuration of the set of tasks among the plurality of work centers; generating, in the GUI and together with the first user interface element, a second user interface element displaying the third value for the second performance metric; and responsive to receiving a second selection corresponding to the second user interface element: modifying the display of the GUI to generate a third digital representation of a third configuration of the set of tasks to be performed at the plurality of work centers. Kuwahara para. 73-74 teach if the input unit 6 selects the application button B3 in S106 during execution of the improvement measure effect display mode, the display control unit 14 executes the selected improvement measure display mode in S107. As shown in FIG. 12, in the selected improvement measure display mode, items NA to NI of a plurality of improvement measures are listed on the display unit 4, and items NA, NC, NE of selected improvement measures selected by the input unit 6 are highlighted. In the example of the display screen of the display unit 4 shown in FIG. 12, a check box is displayed on the left side of each of the items NA to N1 of the plurality of improvement measures, and a check mark as the highlight is placed in the check box on the left side of each of the items NA, NC, NE of the selected improvement measures. Further, the display control unit 14 is configured to be able to change the presence or absence of the highlight with respect to the item of the improvement measure in accordance with the operation of the input unit 6, in the selected improvement measure display mode. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 12, a screen P5 of the selected improvement measure display mode displays an application button B4 for applying the items NA, NC, NE of the selected improvement measures displayed on the screen P5 to the work schedule. If the input unit 6 selects the application button B4 in S108, in S109, the improved schedule creation unit 16 creates an improved work schedule TI obtained by improving the standard work schedule T0. In S109, the improved schedule creation unit 16 creates the improved work schedule T1 based on the standard work schedule T0 and shortening effect information indicating a shortening effect of the required period for work by application of the improvement measure in the item selected by the input unit 6 from among the items of the plurality of improvement measures (for example, information indicating the above-described shortening effect E2). Then, the display control unit 14 executes the improved schedule display mode of displaying the improved work schedule T1 created by the improved schedule creation unit 16 on the display unit 4. In the example shown in FIG. 13, the display control unit 14 displays the improved work schedule T1 created by the improved schedule creation unit 16 and the standard work schedule T0 side by side for comparison on the display unit 4 in the improved schedule display mode.)
Claim 12, 13, 15, 17, 18 recites similar limitation to those recited in claim 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and is rejected for similar reasons. Further, Kuwahara teaches a method comprising the recited steps. (see para. 6).
Claim 20 recites similar limitation to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons. Further, Kuwahara teaches a system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform the recited operations (see para. 56).
Claim(s) 3, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahara US 2022/0147906 A1 in view of Mahmood US 2021/0280287 A1 in view of Volkov US 11,853,935 B2 as applied to claim 2 and in further view of Chua US 20050154625 A1 in view of Remsberg US 2011/0271220 A1.
As per Claim 3 Kuwahara does not teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, wherein the first digital representation includes a first set of icons representing the first subset of tasks performed by a first user at the first work center, wherein the second digital representation includes a second set of icons representing the first subset of tasks performed by a second user at the second work center, However, Chua para. 89 teaches as can be seen in FIG. 3, the 3D machine timeline data structure 300 comprises a "work centers" linked list 302 in the first dimension. Each node of this linked list represents a work center at which schedules may be performed. Each work center node contains a pointer 304 to a "machines" linked list, which occupies the second dimension of the 3D machine timeline data structure 300. Each node in this linked list represents a machine at the work center represented by the parent work center node. Each machine node itself contains a pointer 306 to a further "timeline" linked list, which occupies the third dimension of the 3D machine timeline data structure 300. Each node in this linked list represents a time period during which a particular activity is to be performed at the machine represented by the machine node. The granularity of the time periods is minutes in the present embodiment, however this granularity can be increased or decreased as necessary in alternative embodiments. The nodes in the latter list describe the status of the associated machine during every minute of the scheduling horizon. As will be appreciated, the number of nodes is determined by the scheduled use of the machine. Each linked list is doubly linked to facilitate traversal of the data structure 300. Both Kuwahara and Chua are directed to scheduling tasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kuwahara to include wherein the first digital representation includes a first set of icons representing the first subset of tasks performed by a first user at the first work center, wherein the second digital representation includes a second set of icons representing the first subset of tasks performed by a second user at the second work center as taught by Chua to result in the most efficient execution of tasks (see para. 67).
Kuwahara does not teach wherein the second set of icons is a different size than the first set of icons, and wherein a difference in size between the first set of icons and the second set of icons corresponds to a difference between the first duration of time and the second duration of time. However, Remsberg para. 3 teaches according to an embodiment of the invention, a project-schedule diagramming application enables generation of a diagram of a project schedule including a plurality of tasks. A data set defining each task is received from a user. The data set includes a start time and finish time for each task, an indication of at least one functional relationship between one or more tasks, and a type of each task. A user interface including an illustrated timeline is displayed, as well as a plurality of graphical elements respectively representing the plurality of tasks. Each graphical element illustrates the task start and finish times with reference to the timeline. The size of each graphical element is proportional to a duration of the represented task. Each graphical element is displayed in a format corresponding to the respective type of task represented by the graphical element. Connective elements between the graphical elements illustrating the functional relationships are displayed. Both Kuwahara and Remsberg are directed to scheduling tasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kuwahara to include wherein the second set of icons is a different size than the first set of icons, and wherein a difference in size between the first set of icons and the second set of icons corresponds to a difference between the first duration of time and the second duration of time as taught by Remsberg to easily convey the duration of tasks.
Claim 14 recites similar limitation to those recited in claim 3 and is rejected for similar reasons. Further, Kuwahara teaches a method comprising the recited steps. (see para. 6).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahara US 2022/0147906 A1 in view of Mahmood US 2021/0280287 A1 in view of Volkov US 11,853,935 B2 as applied to claim 7 and in further view of Napoli US 20150199641 A1.
As per Claim 8 Kuwahara does not teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 7, wherein transmitting the set of instructions to a particular work center among the plurality of work centers causes a task display interface device to modify a set of tasks assigned to one or more users assigned to operate one or more machines at the particular work center. However, Napoli para. 20 teaches in an embodiment, the computing device may be configured to re-assign workers to various tasks in a distribution center. In response to receiving selection input, such as a touchscreen input on a graphical user interface button (e.g., a "re-assign" button), the computing device may perform operations to adjust stored data and/or transmit messages that re-assign a worker to a new zone and/or task. In response to performing operations for re-assigning workers, the computing device may be configured to transmit messages to various devices indicating the re-assignments, such as by sending emails, SMS text messages, and other communications to devices used by management personnel, individual workers, and/or display units visible to workers within the distribution center. Both Kuwahara and Napoli are directed to scheduling tasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kuwahara to include wherein transmitting the set of instructions to a particular work center among the plurality of work centers causes a task display interface device to modify a set of tasks assigned to one or more users assigned to operate one or more machines at the particular work center as taught by Napoli reassign tsks in a manner which improves efficiency (see para. 2).
Claim 19 recites similar limitation to those recited in claim 8 and is rejected for similar reasons. Further, Kuwahara teaches a method comprising the recited steps. (see para. 6).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahara US 2022/0147906 A1 in view of Mahmood US 2021/0280287 A1 in view of Volkov US 11,853,935 B2 as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Liu US 2018/0139273 A1.
As per Claim 9 Kuwahara does not teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: detecting a fault at a particular work center among the plurality of work centers; and responsive to detecting the fault: determining the second value for the first performance metric corresponding to the second configuration of the set of tasks among the plurality of work centers, wherein the second configuration includes modifying a set of tasks assigned to the particular work center. However, Liu para. 30 teaches regardless of which data center receives the user request based on member routing data, the entity specific requests need to be routed to the data center where the entity is “hosted” for both read and write operations. If the entity's data center is down, for instance, for maintenance, there may be a simple fail over mechanism for entities hosted in that the data center that failed. Those entities may be assigned to another data center, at least temporarily. Reassigning an entity to a different data center for load balancing, geographic hosting requirements, or due to an outage, can be effected with minimal interruptions, and user access to services hosted by the new data center may be easily effected by modifying the entity routing relationships in data store 322. Typically, an application service instance will run in each data center, and data mirrored at other data centers using various methods. However, the entity routing relationships force user requests to be serviced in the same data center for all members of the entity. If the selected data center becomes overloaded, down for maintenance, or geographically undesirable to the entity, the routing information may be modified to associate the entity with a different data center by either reassigning it to a different bucket; or reassigning the associated bucket to a different data center. In this way, members still access data for the application service at the same data center. Both Kuwahara and Lui are directed to scheduling tasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kuwahara to include detecting a fault at a particular work center among the plurality of work centers; and responsive to detecting the fault: determining the second value for the performance metric corresponding to the second configuration of the set of tasks among the plurality of work centers, wherein the second configuration includes modifying a set of tasks assigned to the particular work center as taught by Liu to reduce interruptions in service (see para. 30) which results in a more robust system.
Claim 19 recites similar limitation to those recited in claim 8 and is rejected for similar reasons. Further, Kuwahara teaches a method comprising the recited steps. (see para. 6).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahara US 2022/0147906 A1 in view of Mahmood US 2021/0280287 A1 in view of Volkov US 11,853,935 B2 as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Bianconcini US 2019/0197475 A1.
As per Claim 10 Kuwahara does not teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: comparing the first value to a target value; and responsive to determining the first value does not meet the target value: determining the second value for the first performance metric corresponding to the second configuration of the set of tasks among the plurality of work centers. However, Bianconcinipara para. 89 teaches in some implementations, rather than wait for the user to select a modified schedule, logistics management platform 220 can automatically select a modified schedule. For example, logistics management platform 220 can automatically select a modified schedule based on a trigger, such a threshold score (e.g., a threshold projected delivery time score, a threshold operational cost score, a threshold overall score, etc.). Both Kuwahara and Bianconcinipara are directed to scheduling tasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kuwahara to include wherein the operations further comprise: comparing the first value to a target value; and responsive to determining the first value does not meet the target value: determining the second value for the performance metric corresponding to the second configuration of the set of tasks among the plurality of work centers as taught by Bianconcini to generate the most optimal schedules (see para 82).
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 DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
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.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625