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 Claims
Claims 1 and 4-10 are pending. Claims 2-3 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-5 are amended. Claims 7-10 are new.
Novelty/Non-obviousness
The closest prior art of record has been included in the office action mailed on 10/01/2024. The claims would be considered allowable if the claims can be rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments, filed 07/01/2025, with respect to the drawings have been considered. Examiner has accepted the drawings submitted on April 29, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/01/2025, with respect to the claim interpretation, 112a and 11b have been considered and is persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the interpretation and rejections.
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/01/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection has been considered and is persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 12, that claim 1 integrated into a practical application and contain eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such predicting an abnormal situation (load overflow) for delivery item. Additionally, the limitations of calculating and comparing influence degrees are considered mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or mathematical relationships). The additional elements (simulation, computer trained using machine learning) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims still recite an abstract idea and the additional elements to do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues, on page 13, that amended claims provide a system which avoids unnecessary simulations while the system continuously monitors the storage place usage status, providing a suitable storage place usage status. This reduces the system load and allows operation on less powerful hardware. As a result, the claim purports to improve the computer capabilities of component management systems. Thus, amended claim 1, as a whole, is integrated into a practical application and contains patent eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned, above, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Here, the alleged improvement is to the determination of an abnormal situation which is part of the business processes of delivery and sorting and not an improvement to a computer or technology or technical field. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
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 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 4-10 is directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine.
Claims 5 is directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
acquire delivery plan information of a component from …;
… to predict the storage place usage status of the component based on the acquired delivery plan information of the component;
acquire delivery track record information of the component;
calculate a first influence degree based on a difference between the acquired delivery track record information of the component and the acquired delivery plan information of the component; and
compare the first influence degree with a first threshold value,
… update the storage place usage status and predict whether the abnormal situation occurs, when the first influence degree exceeds the first threshold value,
… issue an alert indicating the storage place that the abnormal situation is predicted to occur and analyze an occurrence factor of the abnormal situation, in a case that the abnormal situation is predicted to occur at the storage place,
… shows the updated storage place usage status in the case the abnormal situation is predicted to occur at the storage place,
… shows the predicted storage place usage status simulated based on the acquired delivery plan information of the component in a case that the abnormal situation is predicted not to occur,
…, each of the training datasets constituting an occurrence factor of an abnormal situation and a corresponding first threshold value of a first influence degree, and
after …, when the abnormal situation is predicted to occur… amend the first threshold value for calculating the first influence degree based on the occurrence factor of the abnormal situation predicted to occur.
The limitations of Claim 5 recites:
A component management method determining whether an abnormal situation has occurred based on a storage place usage status at a storage place, the method comprising…:
acquiring delivery plan information of a component from …;
…. to predict the storage place usage status of the component based on the acquired delivery plan information of the component;
acquiring delivery track record information of the component;
calculating a first influence degree based on a difference between the acquired delivery track record information of the component and the acquired delivery plan information of the component; and
comparing the first influence degree with a first threshold value,
wherein the method further comprises
… to update the storage place usage status and predicting whether the abnormal situation occurs in a case that the first influence degree exceeds the first threshold value, and
issuing, …, an alert and analyzing an occurrence factor of the abnormal situation, in a case that the abnormal situation is predicted to occur at the storage place, the alert indicating the storage place that the abnormal situation occurs,
wherein the method further comprises
showing, …, the updated storage place usage status in the case that the abnormal situation is predicted to occur at the storage place, and
showing, …, the predicted storage place usage status simulated based on the acquired delivery plan information of the component in a case that the abnormal situation is predicted not to occur, and
wherein the method further comprises amending, …, the first threshold value for calculating the first influence degree based on the occurrence factor of the abnormal situation when the abnormal situation is predicted to occur,
…, each of the training datasets constituting an occurrence factor of an abnormal situation and a corresponding first threshold value of a first influence degree.
The limitations of Claim 7 recites:
acquire previous day result information including a status of storage use and a quantity of stock of each of a plurality of components in the storage place;
acquire component delivery plan information from …, the component delivery plan information including a scheduled delivery time for each of the components;
acquire production information from …;
acquire resource information including attendance of workers from …;
obtain daily change information based on the component delivery plan information, the production information and the resource information;
… predict a storage usage status of the storage place based on the previous day result information and the daily change information, wherein the display shows the predicted storage usage status;
acquire a plurality of delivery record information at a predetermined frequency during a day, the delivery record information including actual delivery time of each of the components;
calculate a difference value for each of the components based on the scheduled delivery time and the actual delivery time of each of the components;
calculate a first influence degree based on the difference values; and
determine whether the first influence degree exceeds a first threshold, … display the predicted storage usage status in a case that the first influence degree is lower than the first threshold,
… update the storage place usage status and to predict whether a load overflow occurs beyond a capacity of the storage place when the first influence degree exceeds the first threshold, and is further configured to change the display of the predicted storage usage status to the updated storage place usage status and to issue an alert indicating the storage place that the abnormal situation is predicted to occur in a case that the abnormal situation occurs,
… accumulate occurrence factors of abnormal situations, analyze the occurrence factors, and update the first threshold.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such predicting an abnormal situation (load overflow) for delivery item. Additionally, the limitations of calculating and comparing influence degrees are considered mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or mathematical relationships). The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
A component management system configured to determine whether an abnormal situation has occurred based on a storage place usage status at a storage place, the component management system comprising a computer and a database, wherein the computer includes a display and is configured to:
Execute a simulation
wherein the computer is further configured to be trained using machine learning with a plurality of training datasets, the training datasets being inputted to the computer …
Claim 5
Computer
Database
Execute a simulation
display
wherein the computer is pre-trained with a plurality of training datasets using machine learning, the training datasets being inputted to the computer…
Claim 7
A component management system configured to determine whether an abnormal situation has occurred based on a storage place usage status at a storage place, the component management system comprising a computer, a first database, a second database, and a third database, wherein the computer includes a display and is configured to:
Execute a simulation
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
Dependent claims 4 and 6, 8-10 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claims 4 and 6, 8-10 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 9:
Artificial intelligence
Claim 10
The component management system according to claim 1, further comprising a memory,
wherein the computer is further configured to
store the analyzed occurrence factor in the memory,
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
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 ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628