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 of the Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 12, 14, 19 and 22 are currently amended.
Claims 10, 13, and 15-16 are canceled.
Claims 23-24 are new.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, 14, and 17-24 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments (pages 9-17) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed by a computer processor. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’).
Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory in Content Extraction is according to the court an abstract idea that is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts. Present claim 1 is collecting, analyzing data, and displaying results using a generic computer processor. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on the similarity of the idea described in this claim to several abstract ideas found by the courts that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s arguments provided in page 14, “receiving real-time data of the planned manufacturing operation from one or more sensors of the industrial automation system; and processing the real-time data to determine real-time performance data; causing a user interface to display the real-time performance data” and arguments in page 17 (improvement to the functioning of a computer)
Receiving and processing real-time sensor data by itself is not enough to overcome the pending 35 USC § 101 rejection because receiving, processing data, and displaying performance do not show a technical solution to solve a technical problem. The real-time sensor data or the real time feedback loop are displaying information and do not modify the industrial automation system.
Further, paragraph 0120 recites “[00120] Technical effects of the disclosed embodiments include an improved production system for a manufacturing environment. The scheduling application disclosed herein more efficiently generates a prioritized schedule of work orders using an iterative algorithm (e.g., simulated annealing) on an objective function having multiple constraints, thereby greatly reducing the amount of time that would otherwise be needed to produce the prioritized schedule by hand. The staffing application disclosed herein more efficiently generates a staffing plan, which includes assignments of staff members to work stations. The staffing plan generates the staffing plan via a Hungarian algorithm, which accounts for day-of absenteeism and the certifications held by the staff members, thereby greatly reducing the amount of time that would otherwise be needed to generate a staffing plan that comparably meets the manufacturing demand. The engineering application improves the efficiency and gross output of the manufacturing environment by comparing mean production times (e.g., time of completion) to constraint production times, and generating notifications (e.g., feedback) when the mean production times do not satisfy the constraint production time. The engineering application increases an efficiency of production by aiding engineers in identifying the causes of lags in production and improves the overall output of the manufacturing environment by allowing engineers to monitor the productivity of production lines and alter the constraint times as needed, so as to increase the output of the manufacturing facility while not exceeding a capability of the production lines.” Emphasis added.
The real problem solved by the present claims is (according to para. 0120) automating a manual process and solving a business problem rather than a technical problem which is abstract according to the court. The present claims are similar to Electric Power Group by collecting, analyzing, and displaying data and distinguished from McRO and Dimand v. Diehr. In the Diehr case for example, there is an actual control of a machine/mold following a real time manufacturing sensor data of a desired temperature which solved a technical problem.
"As part of its analysis, the McRO court examined the specification, which described the claimed invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules, rather than human artists, to set morph weights (relating to facial expressions as an animated character speaks) and transition parameters between phonemes (relating to sounds made when speaking). As explained in the specification, human artists did not use the claimed rules, and instead relied on subjective determinations to set the morph weights and manipulate the animated face to match pronounced phonemes. The McRO court thus relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process." (Please see USPTO November 2, 2016 Memo, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions). In other words, the claims in McRo were essentially rooted in computer technology because there is no analog method to accomplish the specific limitations described in the claims.
The claims at issue, on the other hand, are not rules that enable the automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated or limitations necessarily rooted in computer technology. As explained in the present Office Action, the idea of " generating staffing recommendations and staffing plan for a manufacturing facility" is an abstract idea because it is an idea that was similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Therefore, unlike McRo claims and similar to Alice, the current claims themselves are not a set of rules that enable the automation of the specific tasks in a computer in order to either improve an existing technology or root the claims in a computer technology because they are merely manual steps that are linked to a computer in order to automate an existing manual process.
As a result, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two.
Because the Examiner has determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the Examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept (arguments page 16). In making this Step 2B determination, the Examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The Examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step,’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B” Id. In this part of the analysis, the Examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the steps of generating staffing recommendations and staffing plan for a manufacturing facility is accomplished in a non-conventional way. The automation of a manual process was found not to be significantly more limitation. Therefore, the claims do not contain significantly more limitation because they do not improve on pre-existing technology (please see July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility p. 7). The Examiner therefore concludes that the claims used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea of generating staffing recommendations and staffing plan for a manufacturing facility and that there is no improvement to an “existing technology.” Wherein the “the claimed approach recites new techniques for generating a staffing recommendation, a prioritized schedule, and a staffing plan for a production environment” as argued in page 18 are obvious business process improvement.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
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 1-9, 11-12, 14, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-9, 11-12, 14, and 17-24 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, 14, and 17-24 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of generating staffing recommendations and staffing plan for a manufacturing facility.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “receive production data from an enterprise resource planning system, wherein the production data comprises work order data indicative of a work order prioritization, material data indicative of a material prioritization, or a combination thereof associated with the planned manufacturing operation; receive first constraint data, wherein the first constraint data comprises a constraint time for completing a work order, a shift time, a product line capability of a production line, or a combination thereof; generate an index value based on the first constraint data and the production data, wherein the index value comprises a recommended number of staff members, an expertise value indicative of a recommended level of expertise, or a combination thereof, associated with the planned manufacturing operation; generate a sequence of one or more work orders, wherein the one or more work orders are organized based on a priority value indicative of a priority; and transmit the index value and the sequence; receive the index value and the sequence; receive employee data, and generate table configured to be displayed based on the index value, the sequence, and the employee data, wherein the table comprises an assignment of a staff member to a station in a manufacturing environment; receive second constraint data from the manufacturing execution system, wherein the second constraint data comprises the constraint time associated with the planned manufacturing operation; receive real-time performance data from the manufacturing execution system, wherein the real-time performance data comprises a current performance of an industrial automation system associated with the planned manufacturing operation; and generate a notification based on the second constraint data and the real-time performance data, wherein the notification comprises a visual alert indicative that the real-time performance data does not satisfy a condition set by the second constraint data; receive real-time data of the planned manufacturing operation of the industrial automation system; and process the real-time data to determine real-time performance data; wherein the dashboards application is configured to cause the user interface to display the real-time performance data”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Wherein scheduling, staffing, and monitoring performance are fundamental economic practices because the claimed elements describe a process for managing workforce by collecting and analyzing data. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 8 and 14 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 8 and 14 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-7, 9, 11-12, and 17-24 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for generating staffing recommendations and staffing plan for a manufacturing facility. As a result, claims 2-7, 9, 11-12, and 17-24recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory, accessible by the processor, and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to run a scheduling application, a staffing application, an engineering application, a dashboards application, or a combination thereof; wherein the scheduling application is configured to:”, “from a manufacturing execution system”, “to the staffing application”, “wherein the staffing application is configured to:”, “from the scheduling application”, “from an employee database wherein the employee database comprises a real-time attendance database, an employee certification database, a project absence database, or a combination thereof”, “on a user interface”, “wherein the engineering application is configured to:”, “from one or more sensors”, and “wherein the dashboards application is configured to cause the user interface to”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the steps of “receiving and transmitting” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “receiving and transmitting” are insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 8 and 14 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further recites “via a processor” and claim 14 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 8 and 14 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-7, 9, 11-12, and 17-24include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 8, and 14. The additional elements in the dependent claims include “controlling, via the processor, a user interface to” as in claim 5. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 2-7, 9, 11-12, and 17-24 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory, accessible by the processor, and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to run a scheduling application, a staffing application, an engineering application, a dashboards application, or a combination thereof; wherein the scheduling application is configured to:”, “from a manufacturing execution system”, “to the staffing application”, “wherein the staffing application is configured to:”, “from the scheduling application”, “from an employee database wherein the employee database comprises a real-time attendance database, an employee certification database, a project absence database, or a combination thereof”, “on a user interface”, “wherein the engineering application is configured to:”, “from one or more sensors”, and “wherein the dashboards application is configured to cause the user interface to”. The steps of “receiving and transmitting” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “receiving and transmitting” are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 8 and 14 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further recites “via a processor” and claim 14 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 8 and 14 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-7, 9, 11-12, and 17-24 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 8, and 14. The additional elements in the dependent claims include “controlling, via the processor, a user interface to” as in claim 5. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 2-7, 9, 11-12, and 17-24 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-9, 11-12, 14, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623