DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed November 17, 2025. Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 16, and 18–19 are amended, and claims 2–4, 6–7, and 9–11 are canceled. Currently, claims 1, 5, 8, and 12–20 are pending.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claims 1 and 19 for informalities. Accordingly, the previous objection to claims 1 and 19 is withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s Response necessitates a new objection for informalities, and Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to obviate the previous interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Accordingly, the previous interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
However, Applicant’s Response necessitates a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
With respect to the previous rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first asserts that the claims do not recite a mental process because the human mind is not equipped to capture images with a camera. Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1) describes the Step 2A Prong One inquiry and indicates that examiners should evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and in view of MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), Examiner submits that a claim recites a mental process when any claim limitation recites a mental process. Here, although Examiner agrees that the recited camera does not recite a mental process under Step 2A Prong One, Examiner maintains that the remaining claim limitations, as identified in the Step 2A Prong One analysis presented below, recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper.
Applicant next asserts that the claims do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity because the claims do not recite a process for evaluating work effort. Examiner disagrees. The claims expressly recite a process for measuring actual man-hour values in comparison to standard man-hour values and updating standard man-hour values based on the comparison. Further, paragraphs 261–262 of the Specification disclose that a standard man-hour defines a single operation per unit time, such that an evaluation of a standard man-hour is an evaluation of a work effort in performance of work operations. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Finally, Applicant asserts that the claims embody an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field under Step 2A Prong Two. More particularly, Applicant asserts that the camera and display result in an improvement in technology because the elements make it possible to detect a difference between the actual value of man-hour and the standard man-hour. Examiner disagrees.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that, in support of Applicant’s assertion of a technical improvement, Applicant’s remarks merely restate the claimed elements. Examiner submits that such remarks are not persuasive because the remarks do not provide any basis or rationale underpinning that would explain why the claimed elements embody a technical improvement. Further, FIG. 1 and paragraphs 100 and 446 disclose generic camera and display device technology without disclosing any technical improvements in the recited technical elements. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Accordingly, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive, and the previous rejection is maintained and reasserted below.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103. More particularly, when considered in combination with the remaining claim elements, the prior art of record, either taken alone or in any combination, does not expressly disclose the elements to “detect a difference between an actual value of the man-hour of each of the plurality of time frames include in the first period,” “repeatedly perform operations to update the standard man-hour, in case that the difference is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, the operations including: changing the standard man-hour by a predetermined amount in an increasing or a decreasing direction,” and “acquire, with respect to an item of operation identical with the man-hour acquired in the first period, a predicted man-hour value for the second period by using a dataset for prediction including period identification information, period attribute information, and quantity information,” as substantially recited in independent claims 1 and 19. Accordingly, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 19 recite “repeatedly perform operations to update the standard man-hour, in case that the difference is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value”. Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite “repeatedly perform operations to update the standard man-hour, in a case that the difference is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value” in order to address the inadvertent omission.
Claim 8 recites “the difference with respect to the man-hours of the plurality of operations” as the final element of the claim. Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “the difference with respect to [[the]] man-hours of the plurality of operations” in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 12–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 19 recite “the man-hour” in the element to “detect”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “detect a difference between an actual value of [[the]] a man-hour”.
Claims 1 and 19 further recite “the standard man-hours” in the element reciting “when the difference is increasing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “when the difference is increasing, reversing the direction of change in the standard man-hour”.
Finally, claims 1 and 19 recite “the repeatedly updated standard man-hour” in the element to “use”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “use, in a second period after the first period, the
In view of the above, claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 8, 12–18, and 20, which depend from claims 1 and 19, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 5, 8, 12–18, and 20 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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, 5, 8, and 12–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1, 5, 8, and 12–20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements to “detect a difference between an actual value of the man-hour of each of the plurality of time frames included in the first period and a standard man-hour based on the images”; “repeatedly perform operations to update the standard man-hour, in case that the difference is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, the operations including: changing the standard man-hour by a predetermined amount in an increasing or a decreasing direction; determining whether the difference is decreasing or increasing according to the changing; and when the difference is increasing, reversing the direction of change in the standard man-hours”; “use, in a second period after the first period, the repeatedly updated standard man-hour in the first period for creating an operation plan for a subsequent period after the first period”; “acquire, with respect to an item of operation identical with the man-hour acquired in the first period, a predicted man-hour value for the second period by using a dataset for prediction including period identification information, period attribute information, and quantity information”; “create an operation plan for the second period based on the standard man-hour that has been repeatedly updated, the predicted man-hour value, and personnel information about personnel including a worker who performs the plurality of operations in the second period”; and “output a plurality of differences detected over the plurality of time frames to make the plurality of differences comparable with each other.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for evaluating work effort to create an operation plan. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 19 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 19 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 5, 8, 12–18, and 20 further describe the process for evaluating work effort to create an operation plan and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 5, 8, 12–18, and 20 recite 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 under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a camera that captures images, a processor, and a display. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 19 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 19 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 12 and 20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include an input device (claim 12) and a storage medium (claim 20). When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 12 and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 5, 8, and 13–18 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 5, 8, and 13–18 depend. As a result, claims 5, 8, and 13–18 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
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 under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a camera that captures images, a processor, and a display. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 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, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 19 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 19 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 12 and 20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include an input device (claim 12) and a storage medium (claim 20). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components 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 12 and 20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 5, 8, and 13–18 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 5, 8, and 13–18 depend. As a result, claims 5, 8, and 13–18 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 5, 8, and 12–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Adhikari (U.S. 2015/0347942) discloses a system directed to optimizing a labor budget based on labor forecasts and labor standards.
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 WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623