DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's reply filed 8/27/2025.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
This application claims priority as a PCT of PCT/JP2022/017597 filed on 4/12/2022, which claims further priority of foreign application JP2021-075452 filed 4/27/2021. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged. Acknowledgment is made of applicant' s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 103, 35 USC 112, and 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1 and 3-12, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims are not directed toward an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner asserts activating something on a computer after a human user clicks on something on the computer does not make the claims eligible, the claims are not related to DDR in anyway and do not recite any details on URL’s or specific display of different webpages. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are not directed towards a mental process. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection below clearly outlines the abstract idea, where Applicant’s claims merely recite a means for performing the steps/functions, which in this case is on a general purpose computer. Reciting a general purpose computer does not mean the claims are not directed towards a mental process (See MPEP 2106). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner asserts the claims are directed towards the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity, which is no addressed by Applicant.
The Examiner also asserts that having a different combination of steps/functions in each of the independent claims helps show that the order and specific combination does not matter for achieving the invention. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are definite. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner asserts the term similar is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant does not even define the term in the arguments. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1 and 3-12, Applicant argues that the claims are allowable over 35 USC 103 because the claim amendments overcome the current art rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the updated rejection below since amendments by Applicant require additional reference to the Examiner’s art rejection.
Applicant argues the cited prior art does not display data “immediately”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Column 4 lines 29-47 of Brearley et al. clearly disclose updating in real time. The limitation is taught by the cited prior art. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues further claim limitations are not taught by the cited prior art, but does not provide any reasoning as to why or any comparison to the prior art. The Examiner specifically points to Figure 3, Column 4, and claim 1 of Brearley et al., which show generating production plans based on numbers of orders received compared to forecasted numbers in real time as new data becomes available. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 3-12 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, 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, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 11-12 are directed toward a process and claims 1 and 3-10 are directed toward a system; which are statutory categories of invention. Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a method for creating a production plan, characterized in that a network is connected to a service management device configured for a client company and a planning device configured for a contractor company, and the service management device stores in advance planning conditions, which are determination values for a delivery date and a number of items for each contractor company and for each item, and whether a manufacturing request can be accepted is determined without inquiring the planning device in response to a request for planning received from the client company, the method comprising: a process of the service management device receiving the request for planning from the client company, referring to the previously stored planning conditions, and determining whether the request of the client company meets the planning conditions; a process of the service management device transmitting a response to accept the manufacturing request to the client company when determining that the request from the client company meets the planning conditions, and transmitting a similar response to the planning device; a process of the planning device reflecting the response received from the service management device in the plan, recalculating and updating the planning conditions, and transmitting the planning conditions related to the corresponding client company to the service management device; a process of the service management device receiving the planning conditions related to the client company updated by the planning device from the planning device, and updating own planning conditions and history; a process of the service management device transmitting the request for planning of the client company to the planning device of a corresponding contractor company, when determining that the request of the client company does not meet the planning conditions; a process of the planning device receiving the request for planning from the client company received from the service management device, creating a production plan by considering the request for planning received from the client company and an estimated value of the request for planning from another client company with recent transaction record, and responding to the service management device with the created production planning result, wherein the process of the planning device further includes activating a plan evaluation means immediately after creating the production plan or at a predetermined regular cycle for allocating a manufacturable quantity for each company according to a ratio of a number of orders placed by all companies that placed orders in a past set period, with a delivery date that is a preset period from the current date and time or a preset period from the delivery date of the latest order for each company, subtracting an already ordered number from the manufacturable quantity, and updating the planning conditions with the result; a process of the planning device recalculating and updating planning conditions of all companies that placed orders in a past set period, and transmitting planning conditions related to corresponding client company to the service management device that received the request for planning; a process of the service management device transmitting a request for planning from the client company to the planning device of the corresponding contractor company, receiving a production planning result created by the planning device, and responding with the production planning result to the client company from which the request is originally received; and a process of the service management device transmitting the request for planning from the client company to the planning device of the corresponding contractor company, receiving the planning conditions related to the client company updated by the planning device from the planning device, and updating own planning conditions (Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are merely reciting the steps human users are taking in production planning for a facility (e.g. manufacturing) using general purpose computer components, which is managing how humans interact for commercial purposes. The claim limitations can clearly be done in the human mind as each input to be transmitted is to be done by a human and all the planning results are merely determined by a human using a general purpose computer. The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are merely reciting the steps human users are taking in production planning for a facility (e.g. manufacturing) using general purpose computer components, which is a Mental Process. The Examiner notes that the entirety of the claims is generically reciting mental processes a human would take in production planning for a facility.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the above “the service management device stores in advance planning conditions; a process of the service management device receiving the request for planning from the client company; a process of the service management device transmitting a response to accept the manufacturing request to the client company, and transmitting a similar response to the planning device” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “a system; a network is connected to a service management device configured for a client company and a planning device configured for a contractor company; virtual device; cloud; screen” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106).
In addition, dependent claims 2-10 and 12 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 9 and 10 additionally recite receiving and transmitting data which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity, which is merely being carried out by a human user. The claimed “virtual device; cloud; screen” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106).
The claimed “a system; a network is connected to a service management device configured for a client company and a planning device configured for a contractor company; virtual device; cloud; screen” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) and at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See MPEP 2106).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106). Further, method; and System claims 1 and 3-12 recite a system; a network is connected to a service management device configured for a client company and a planning device configured for a contractor company; virtual device; cloud; screen; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0025-0028 and Figures 1-4. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “the service management device stores in advance planning conditions; a process of the service management device receiving the request for planning from the client company; a process of the service management device transmitting a response to accept the manufacturing request to the client company, and transmitting a similar response to the planning device” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-10 and 12 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and present no additional elements that provide significantly more. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 9-10 additionally recite receiving and transmitting data which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “virtual device; cloud; screen” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-12 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.
Regarding Claims 7 and 11-12: The term “similar” in claims 7 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The confusion to the Examiner renders the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being taught by Brearley et al. (US 7,162,318 B1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11: Brearley et al. teach a method for creating a production plan, characterized in that a network is connected to a service management device configured for a client company and a planning device configured for a contractor company (See Figure 1 – “factories, supplier, vendors, customers”, Figure 2 – “supplier, vendor, factory”, and claim 1);
and the service management device stores in advance planning conditions, which are determination values for a delivery date and a number of items for each contractor company and for each item (See Figure 5, Figure 7, and column 3 lines 20-52);
and whether a manufacturing request can be accepted is determined without inquiring the planning device in response to a request for planning received from the client company (See Figure 5, Figure 7, and column 17 lines 14-50);
the method comprising: a process of the service management device receiving the request for planning from the client company (See Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 5);
referring to the previously stored planning conditions, and determining whether the request of the client company meets the planning conditions (See Figure 6, Figure 7, and columns 4-5 lines 57-67 and 1-6);
a process of the service management device transmitting a response to accept the manufacturing request to the client company when determining that the request from the client company meets the planning conditions, and transmitting a similar response to the planning device (See Figure 5, Figure 7, columns 4-5 lines 57-67 and 1-6, column 17 lines 14-50, and claim 1);
a process of the planning device reflecting the response received from the service management device in the plan, recalculating and updating the planning conditions, and transmitting the planning conditions related to the corresponding client company to the service management device (See Figures 6-7, Abstract, and claim 5);
a process of the service management device receiving the planning conditions related to the client company updated by the planning device from the planning device, and updating own planning conditions and history (See Figures 6-7, Abstract, and claim 5);
a process of the service management device transmitting the request for planning of the client company to the planning device of a corresponding contractor company, when determining that the request of the client company does not meet the planning conditions (See Figures 6-7 and columns 7-8 lines 64-67 and 1-10);
a process of the planning device receiving the request for planning from the client company received from the service management device, creating a production plan by considering the request for planning received from the client company and an estimated value of the request for planning from another client company with recent transaction record, and responding to the service management device with the created production planning result (See Figures 6-7, Abstract, and claim 1);
wherein the process of the planning device further includes activating a plan evaluation means immediately after creating the production plan or at a predetermined regular cycle for allocating a manufacturable quantity for each company according to a ratio of a number of orders placed by all companies that placed orders in a past set period, with a delivery date that is a preset period from the current date and time or a preset period from the delivery date of the latest order for each company, subtracting an already ordered number from the manufacturable quantity, and updating the planning conditions with the result (See Figure 3, Abstract, Column 4 lines 29-47, columns 11-12 lines 55-67 and 1-20, and claim 1);
a process of the planning device recalculating and updating planning conditions of all companies that placed orders in a past set period, and transmitting planning conditions related to corresponding client company to the service management device that received the request for planning (See Figures 6-7, Abstract, claim 1, and claim 5);
a process of the service management device transmitting a request for planning from the client company to the planning device of the corresponding contractor company, receiving a production planning result created by the planning device, and responding with the production planning result to the client company from which the request is originally received (See Figures 6-7, Abstract, and claim 1);
and a process of the service management device transmitting the request for planning from the client company to the planning device of the corresponding contractor company, receiving the planning conditions related to the client company updated by the planning device from the planning device, and updating own planning conditions (See Figures 6-7, Abstract, claim 1, and claim 5).
Regarding Claim 3: Brearley et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Brearley et al. further teach wherein, when the planning device receives the request for planning from the first client company from the service management device and creates a production plan, the planning device responds to the service management device with the created production planning result (See Figure 1-2, Figures 6-7, Abstract, and claim 1).
Regarding Claim 4: Brearley et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Brearley et al. further teach wherein, when the planning device recalculates and updates the planning conditions of all companies that placed orders in a past set period, the planning device transmits the planning conditions related to a corresponding client company to the service management device that received the request for planning (See Figure 1-2, Figures 6-7, Abstract, and claim 5).
Regarding Claim 5: Brearley et al. teach the limitations of claim 3. Brearley et al. further teach wherein the service management device transmits the request for planning from the client company to the planning device of a corresponding contractor company, then receives a result of creating the production plan created by the planning device, and responds with the production planning result to the client company from which the request is originally received (See Figure 1-2, Figures 6-7, Abstract, and claim 1).
Regarding Claim 6: Brearley et al. teach the limitations of claim 4. Brearley et al. further teach wherein the service management device transmits the request for planning from the client company to the planning device of a corresponding contractor company, then receives the planning conditions related to the client company updated by the planning device from the planning device, and updates own planning conditions (See Figure 1-2, Figures 6-7, Abstract, claim 1, and claim 5).
Regarding Claim 7: Brearley et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Brearley et al. further teach wherein when the request of the client company meets the planning conditions, the service management device transmits a response to accept the manufacturing request to the client company and transmits a similar response to the planning device, the planning device reflects the response received from the service management device in the plan, recalculates and updates the planning conditions, and transmits the planning conditions related to the corresponding client company to the service management device, and the service management device receives the planning conditions related to the client company updated by the planning device from the planning device, and updates own planning conditions and history (See Figure 1-2, Figures 6-7, Abstract, columns 4-5 lines 57-67 and 1-6, column 17 lines 14-50, claim 1, and claim 5).
Regarding Claim 8: Brearley et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Brearley et al. further teach wherein the planning device allocates the manufacturable quantity for each company according to the ratio of the number of orders from all companies that placed orders in the past set period, then, considering the on-time delivery rate, adjusts the manufacturable quantity such that the on-time delivery rate is 100%, and finally updates the planning condition with the manufacturable quantity subtracted by the already ordered number (See Figure 3, Abstract, Column 4 lines 29-47, columns 11-12 lines 55-67 and 1-20, and claim 1).
Regarding Claim 9: Brearley et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Brearley et al. further teach characterized in that the service management device is a virtual device configured on a cloud by a cloud service company, and is configured exclusively for each client company that uses the device while an actual device resides on a server of the cloud service company (See Figures 1-2, column 2 lines 40-54, column 3 lines 11-52, and claim 1).
Regarding Claim 10: Brearley et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Brearley et al. further teach wherein on a screen by which the planning device reports the production planning results, in the production plan for each production line, boxes are arranged in chronological order, length of each box represents time used for production of the same client, the client and a difference in number of days from a requested delivery date are displayed in each box, and shade of color of the box is changed according to planning time such that as a difference between the current time and the planning time decreases, a darker color is displayed (See Figure 3, Figure 4, columns 11-12 lines 55-67 and 1-20, columns 13-14 lines 57-67 and 1-6, and claim 1).
Regarding Claim 12: Brearley et al. teach the limitations of claim 11. Brearley et al. further teach a process of the planning device receiving an input created in response to a request for planning received by the contractor company from a client company that does not use the service management device, creating a production plan by considering the request for planning received from the client company and an estimated value of the request for planning from another client company with recent transaction record, and outputting the created production planning result to the client company from which the request is received; a process of the planning device recalculating and updating the planning conditions of all companies that placed orders in a past set period, and transmitting the planning conditions related to the corresponding client company to each service management device; and a process of each service management device receiving the planning conditions related to the client company updated by the planning device from the planning device, and updating own planning conditions and history (See Figures 1-2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Abstract, columns 11-12 lines 55-67 and 1-20, columns 13-14 lines 57-67 and 1-6, and claim 1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625