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 of the Application
2. Claim 1-13 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 9/22/23 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a storage unit that stores facility configuration information in claim 1;
a display unit that displays in claim 2, and 6-7;
the storage unit stores facility candidate information in claim 3 and 10;
the storage unit stores constraint condition in claim 11;
a storage unit that stores facility configuration information, the processing unit performs a procedure in claim 12-13,
Also as noted, the specification disclosed “ “storage unit” or the “storage device” may be a memory or a memory and a persistent storage device” (Para. [0038] of Pub: 2024/0134364);
the “processing unit” or the “processor” may be one or more processor devices. At least one processor device may typically be a microprocessor device such as a central processing unit (CPU), but may be another type of processor device such as a graphics processing unit (GPU) (Para. [0039] of Pub: 2024/0134364);
In the following description, the “input unit”, the “output unit”, the “display unit”, and the “interface device” may be one or more interface devices. The one or more interface devices may be at least one of the following: [0034] One or more input/output (I/O) interface devices. The input/output (I/O) interface device is an interface device for at least one of an I/O device and a remote display computer (Para. [0033]-[0034] of Pub: 2024/0134364).
Thus, the claimed limitations are supported by the specification and are in accordance with MPEP.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the movement time". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6-10 are also rejected under 112(b) rejection due to their direct/indirect dependency over the claim 5.
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.
6. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more as fully discussed below.
7. Regarding Independent claim 1, and 12-13:
Step 1: Yes
Claim 1 is drawn to a production line design apparatus, claim 12 is drawn to a production line design system, and claim 13 is drawn to a production line design method, therefore claim 1, and 12-13 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes
Independent claim 1, and 12-13 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, and 12-13 recites claim limitation of “performs a procedure of executing layout candidate generation processing of generating layout information that satisfies the number configuration by combining the arrangement patterns using the facility configuration information and the arrangement pattern definition information” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mental concept. A human can mentally perform a procedure to generate layout information using configuration information and definition information. Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than a mental abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No
Claim 1, and 12-13 recites additional limitation of “stores facility configuration information that defines a number configuration including at least one or more main facilities that perform a main work in a production line and at least one or more setup facilities -that perform an auxiliary work of the main facility” and “and arrangement pattern definition information including one or more arrangement patterns that define a combination of a movement method of the setup facility that is adoptable and a relative positional relationship between the main facility that is adoptable and the setup facility” that fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The step of “storing” is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, such that data gathering is necessary for the use of the judicial exception (e.g., data are needed to process the mental concept of process execution). The combination of these additional functions does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 further recite additional limitation of "storage unit", “processor”, claim 12-13 are recite “storage unit”, and “processing unit” are considered as do not integrate into practical application and are recited at a high level of generality such that thy amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.95(f)).
The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
The additional functions that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional element to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data storing, collecting, receiving, transmitting, outputting, or displaying (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) or (iv: Storing and retrieving information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015))).
As such, claim 1, and 12-13 are not patent eligible.
8. Dependent claims 2-11:
Step 1: Yes
Claim 2-11 are drawn to the production line design apparatus, therefore claim 2-11 are falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter). Nonetheless, dependent claims 2-11 are also ineligible for the same reasons given with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes
Dependent claim 2-11 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 4 recites claim limitation of “specifies the arrangement pattern using the ratio in the layout candidate generation process”;
Claim 5 recites limitation of “executes layout evaluation processing of evaluating that the layout information satisfying the constraint condition is applicable to a production line”;
Claim 8 recites limitation of “calculates the cycle time by summing work times of the processes for each of the main facilities”;
Claim 9 recites limitation of “calculates the work time of the setup facility by summing work times of the processes for each of the setup facilities”;
Claim 10 recites limitation of “calculates a quotient of a movement distance of the setup facility according to the process assignment information and the movement speed of the setup facility included in the facility candidate information as the movement time of the setup facility”;
Claim 11 recites the limitation of “calculates the outer dimension in each piece of layout information based on the outer dimension of the main facility and the outer dimension of the setup facility by using the layout information and the facility configuration information, and executes layout evaluation processing of evaluating that the layout information satisfying the constraint condition is applicable to a production line” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mental concept. A human can mentally perform specifies the pattern, evaluating and calculation function of the claimed limitation as discussed above. Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than a mental abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No
Claim 2, and 6-7 recites additional limitation of “a display unit that displays…..” The functions of displaying is forms of insignificant input or output solution activities (i.e., extra solution), such that data outputting are necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3, 5, and 10-11 recites additional limitation of “storage unit stores….” that fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The step of “storing” is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, such that data gathering is necessary for the use of the judicial exception (e.g., data are needed to process the mental concept of process execution). The combination of these additional functions does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The above discussed limitation of "storage unit", “processor”, “display unit” are considered as do not integrate into practical application and are recited at a high level of generality such that thy amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.95(f)).
The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
The additional functions that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional element to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data storing, collecting, receiving, transmitting, outputting, or displaying (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) or (iv: Storing and retrieving information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015))).
As such, dependent claim 2-11 are not patent eligible.
Pertinent Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakano (Pub: 2024/0036561) disclose a production line design system.
Nakano (Pub: 2023/0221706) disclose a factory planning system.
Kajita (Pub: 2021/0311464) disclose a line configuration planning device.
Sobalvarro (Pat: 11256241) disclose optimized factory schedule and layout generation.
Troy (Pub: 2015/0105887) disclose a manufacturing execution system (MES) that provides tools for modeling and determining information about physical production lines made up of arrangements of entities. The MES includes configuration tools for modeling the entities in a physical production line. The MES also includes configuration tools for modeling the physical production line. Entity data models and line data models conform to the data structure of respective model templates. Line data models include line definition models and line layout models. Line layout models include an entity link model for each of the entities in the physical production line (Abstract).
Ichimura (Pub: 2022/0114299) disclose a layout design device, a layout design method, and a program capable of designing a layout that improves work efficiency in a specific location (Para. [0006]).
Miyoshi (Pub: 2003/0009363) disclose a facility management system for effectively using a facility based on information of measured person flow lines (Para. [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The claim 1 and its dependent claim 2-11, and independent claim 12-13 are allowable once the outstanding 35 U.S.C 101 abstract idea rejection, and 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection is overcome as discussed above.
For independent claim 1, none of the prior art on record taken either alone or in obvious combination disclose “and arrangement pattern definition information including one or more arrangement patterns that define a combination of a movement method of the setup facility that is adoptable and a relative positional relationship between the main facility that is adoptable and the setup facility; and a processor that executes layout candidate generation processing of generating layout information that satisfies the number configuration by combining the arrangement patterns using the facility configuration information and the arrangement pattern definition information”.
Independent claim 12-13 recites the same allowable subject matter as claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116