DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/568,512 filed on May 14, 2026 in which claims 21-33 and 35-39 were amended, claim 40 was canceled, and claims 41 was added.
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 Claims
Claims 21-39 and 41 are pending, of which claims 21-39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, claims 21-38 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and claims 21-39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification lacks support for the claimed “metal end.”
Claim Interpretation
Claim 24 recites a method claim including the limitation “wherein products are included in an overall production sequence if such products are connected via an edge for all plant parts in the corresponding graph models.” (Emphasis added).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the any of products to be including in the overall production sequence. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7).
Claim 31 recites a method claim including the limitation “dividing of production sequences when an actual interruption-free carrying out in the relevant plant part is not possible.” (Emphasis added).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the division of production sequences to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) ("when" may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim 36 recites a method claim including the limitation “wherein, in a graph model, the products included in the production sub-lists represent a node in the graph model and the nodes are connected to one another via a directed edge, if the corresponding products can be manufactured in the corresponding production order without restricting or interrupting production in the plant part.” (Emphasis added).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the connection of nodes to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7).
Claim 37 recites a method claim including the limitation “wherein products are included in an overall production sequence if such products are connected via directed edges for all plant parts in the corresponding graph models.” (Emphasis added).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the any of products to be including in the overall production sequence. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7).
Claim 39 recites a “system for planning production in a metallurgical production plant for producing metal semi-finished products and/or metal end products.” (Emphasis added). This appears to recite the intended use of the system; namely that it is to be used in a metallurgical production plant. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 26, 27, 29, 34, 38, and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims contain “and/or” language. While definite, the preferred verbiage for such language is “at least one of A and B,” See Ex parte Gross (PTAB 2014) (App. S.N. 11/565,411), at Page 4, Footnote 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: this claim fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § § 1.121(c) because it includes the incorrect status identifier of “Currently amended” when no amendments are present. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 21-39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 21-39 and 41, these claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a method, system, and computer program for analyzing production sequences. Therefore, claims 21-39 and 41 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 21 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the § 101 rejection. Representative claim 21 recites:
21. A method for planning production in a production plant comprising a plurality of separate, successive plant parts, wherein products to be manufactured in the production plant are available in a production list and production sub-lists are available for the separate, successive plant parts or are established from the production list, comprising:
analyzing the production sub-lists and determining production sequences for relevant plant parts,
wherein those of the products that can be manufactured in the relevant plant parts without restricting or interrupting production are combined in each of the production sequences,
analyzing the production sequences of the plant parts and determining at least one overall production sequence for the production plant,
wherein an overall production sequence includes those products that include all plant parts in a joint production sequence, and
producing metal semi-finished products and/or metal end in the production plant in accordance with the at least one overall production sequence.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, these limitations, in the context of this claim encompass a human reviewing production data and planning a production sequence. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
21. A method for planning production in a production plant comprising a plurality of separate, successive plant parts, wherein products to be manufactured in the production plant are available in a production list and production sub-lists are available for the separate, successive plant parts or are established from the production list, comprising:
analyzing the production sub-lists and determining production sequences for relevant plant parts,
wherein those of the products that can be manufactured in the relevant plant parts without restricting or interrupting production are combined in each of the production sequences,
analyzing the production sequences of the plant parts and determining at least one overall production sequence for the production plant,
wherein an overall production sequence includes those products that include all plant parts in a joint production sequence, and
producing metal semi-finished products and/or metal end in the production plant in accordance with the at least one overall production sequence.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a plurality of separate, successive plant parts, wherein products to be manufactured in the production plant are available in a production list and production sub-lists are available for the separate, successive plant parts or are established from the production list” the examiner submits that this limitation is both the field of use and instructions to “apply it” on a real world object. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h).
In particular, the these elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general components to be mentally considered in the analysis), and amounts to the mere field of use of the invention.
Additionally, the additional limitation of “producing metal semi-finished products and/or metal end in the production plant in accordance with the at least one overall production sequence” is merely an insignificant, extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 21 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a plurality of separate, successive plant parts (2), wherein products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) to be manufactured in the production plant (1) are available in a production list (3) and production sub-lists (4) are available for the separate, successive plant parts (2) or are established from the production list (3)” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Additionally, the claim limitation “producing metal semi-finished products and/or metal end in the production plant in accordance with the at least one overall production sequence” does not amount to significantly more because this concept of producing semi-finished or end products out of metal is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), Bourne et al., US Patent 5,969,973, and Kanazawa et al., US Publication 2007/0150083.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-40 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite: additional steps of the mental process. Each of the further limitations expound upon the [repeat judicial exception] and do not recite additional elements integrating the [repeat judicial exception] into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 22-40 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 22-40 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 21-38 and 41 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.
Regarding claim 21, this claim includes the limitation “producing metal semi-finished products and/or metal end in the production plant in accordance with the at least one overall production sequence.” (Emphasis added). The term “metal end” does not appear to a known term of art nor does the present specification even use the term. Therefore, the examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of the present invention, rendering this claim indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the examiner shall interpret a “metal end” to be a “metal end product.”
Regarding claims 22-38 and 41, each of these claims depends on at least one of the above claims and, therefore, inherits the rejections of those claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 25-28, 32, 38, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al., US Publication 2023/0221706 (hereinafter Nakano) in view of Bourne et al., US Patent 5,969,973 (hereinafter Bourne), each cited on the Notice of References Cited dated February 20, 2026.
Regarding claim 21, Nakano discloses a method for planning production in a production plant comprising a plurality of separate, successive plant parts (Nakano ¶ 34, “production resource[s]”), wherein products to be manufactured (Nakano ¶ 42, Fig. 2, shows various “product[s]”) in the production plant are available in a production list (Nakano Fig. 2 shows such a production list) and production sub-lists are available for the separate, successive plant parts (Nakano ¶¶ 33-34, each resource candidate is assigned a process for a specific component) or are established from the production list, comprising “analyzing the production sub-lists and determining production sequences for relevant plant parts” (Nakano ¶ 33-34) where each resource candidate (i.e., relevant plant part) includes a process (i.e., a sub-list) identified by a process ID. Additionally, Nakano discloses “wherein those of the products that can be manufactured in the relevant plant parts without restricting or interrupting production are combined in each of the production sequences, and analyzing the production sequences of the plant parts and determining at least one overall production sequence for the production plant” (Nakano ¶¶ 112-113) by calculating a plan for production of all products using those process plan candidates that do not require layout change. Finally, Nakano discloses “wherein an overall production sequence includes those products that include all plant parts in a joint production sequence.” (Nakano ¶ 86).
Although Nakano discloses a production plant, it does not appear to explicitly disclose that the production plant is to produce any specific product and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “producing metal semi-finished products and/or metal end in the production plant in accordance with the at least one overall production sequence.”
However, Bourne discloses a method for planning production in a production plant comprising a “producing metal semi-finished products and/or metal end in the production plant in accordance with the at least one overall production sequence” (Bourne col. 7, ll. 14-32) by forming a finished workpiece (i.e., an end product) from a piece of sheet metal in accordance with a sequence of N bends.
Nakano and Bourne are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of planning a manufacturing process.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nakano and Bourne before him or her to modify the production plant of Nakano to include the production of metal end products of Bourne.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Nakano differs from the claimed invention by not including what is produced in the production plant in place of the claimed metal semi-finished or end products. Further, Bourne teaches that producing metal end products was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted metal end product production of Bourne for the unspecified product production of Nakano because Nakano is clearly intended to produce any type of product.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses “wherein analyzing the production sub-lists to determine the production sequences for the relevant plant parts comprises creating lists of vectors or adjacency matrices for recording relationship networks” (Nakano ¶ 64) where relationship meshes are list of vectors.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses “further comprising optimizing a plurality of overall production sequences to determine a master production sequence, which comprises all products from the production list and/or the production sub-lists to be manufactured in the production plant .” (Nakano ¶ 86).
Regarding claim 27, Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 26 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nakano discloses “wherein a number, weight, or volume of products that are manufactured prior to a later point in time at which the products are taken into account in subsequent overall production sequences, are taken into account when determining the master production sequence, and/or storage capacities of the production plant, the plant parts, or intermediate storage facilities” (Nakano ¶ 45) where the weight of all parts are considered when determining the final plan.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 26 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses “further comprising determining production start times and production end times for the products to be manufactured listed in the production list or in the production sub-lists” (Nakano ¶ 41) by giving an example of a production record including a start and end time.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses “further comprising optimizing the production sequences for the plant parts with regard to processing by the relevant plant part” (Nakano ¶¶ 112-113) where the optimized production sequence is with regard to having no layout change of each included (i.e., relevant) part.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses “further comprising filtering the production list and/or the production sub-lists with respect to delivery dates” (Nakano ¶ 84) where the objective function considers on-time delivery dates.
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses “wherein the plurality of separate, successive plant parts as selected from the group consisting of a blast furnace, a sintering plant, a converter, an electric arc furnace, an induction furnace, a ladle furnace, a vacuum treatment plant, a powder atomization plant, a continuous casting machine, an ingot or mold foundry, a hot rolling mill, a cold rolling mill, a pickling plant, a rewinding line, a blasting line, a galvanizing line, a tinning line, a painting line, a slitting line, a cut-to-length line, a finishing line, a forging press, a reheating furnace, a heat treatment line, and an annealing line” (Bourne col. 7, ll. 14-32) where, because the resultant object is a “finished workpiece,” the successive plant parts at least comprise “a finishing line.”
Claims 22, 29-31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Bourne, as applied to claims 21, 26, and 30 above, in further view of Cornett et al., US Patent 5,216,612 (hereinafter Cornett), as cited on the Information Disclosure Statement dated February 22, 2024.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano and Bourne does not appear to explicitly disclose “defining limit values for product properties in the separate plant parts that cause a production restriction or a production interruption.”
However, Cornett discloses a production planning method including “defining limit values for product properties in the separate plant parts that cause a production restriction or a production interruption” (Cornett col. 4, ll. 19-30) by defining limits in the form of critical and non-critical maintenance tasks, where non-critical maintenance tasks are grouped with critical maintenance tasks so as not to restrict production.
Nakano, Bourne, and Cornett are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of production planning methods.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nakano, Bourne, and Cornett before him or her to modify the production planning method of Nakano and Bourne to include the utilization rate based factors of Cornett.
The motivation for doing so would have been to minimize lost production time. (Cornett Abstract).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 26 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses “wherein a prioritization of the plant parts is taken into account when determining the at least one overall production sequence and/or the master production sequence” (Nakano ¶ 86) where the factory plan (i.e., the master production sequence) considers the usage of resources, which is “a prioritization of the plant parts” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term.
The combination of Nakano and Bourne does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the prioritization is based on an added value or capacity utilization of the plant parts.”
However, Cornett discloses production planning method including the step of “wherein the prioritization is based on an added value or capacity utilization of the plant parts” (Cornett col. 16, ll. 49-64) by considering the capacity utilization of the plant parts in the form of their utilization rates.
Nakano, Bourne, and Cornett are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of production planning methods.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nakano, Bourne, and Cornett before him or her to modify the production planning method of Nakano and Bourne to include the utilization rate based factors of Cornett.
The motivation for doing so would have been to minimize lost production time. (Cornett Abstract).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano and Bourne does not appear to explicitly disclose “further comprising checking the production sequences for the relevant plant parts for an actual interruption-free carrying out in the relevant plant part, wherein, upon the checking, operational conditions and processes of the relevant plant part selected from the group consisting of necessary maintenance downtimes and replacement of operating change parts are taken into account.
However, Cornett discloses a production planning method including “checking the production sequences for the relevant plant parts for an actual interruption-free carrying out in the relevant plant part” (Cornett col. 4, ll. 5-18) by determining which times do not have scheduled offline periods. Additionally, Cornett discloses “wherein, upon the checking, operational conditions and processes of the relevant plant part selected from the group consisting of necessary maintenance downtimes and replacement of operating change parts are taken into account” (Cornett col. 3, l. 57-col. 4, l. 4) by scheduling necessary maintenance downtimes.
Nakano, Bourne, and Cornett are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of production planning methods.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nakano, Bourne, and Cornett before him or her to modify the production planning method of Nakano and Bourne to include the interruption based factors of Cornett.
The motivation for doing so would have been to minimize lost production time. (Cornett Abstract).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Nakano, Bourne, and Cornett discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 30 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano, Bourne, and Cornett discloses “further comprising dividing of production sequences when an actual interruption-free carrying out in the relevant plant part is not possible, wherein, during division, the production sequence to be divided is integrated into an overall production sequence without dividing the overall production sequence” (Cornett col. 11, ll. 28-66) by scheduling downtime (i.e., dividing production sequences) that considers already scheduled downtime (i.e., an overall production sequence) in order to minimize downtime. Thus, any scheduled downtime does not “divide” the overall production sequence any further, if possible.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano and Bourne does not appear to explicitly disclose “further comprising inserting a new product to be manufactured into existing production sequences and/or an overall production sequence, wherein a due date or product properties of the new product to be manufactured are taken into account upon insertion.”
However, Cornett discloses a production planning method including “inserting a new product to be manufactured into existing production sequences and/or an overall production sequence” (Cornett col. 5, l. 63-col. 6, l. 16) by reconfiguring machines to produce new products. Additionally, Cornett discloses “wherein a due date or product properties of the new product to be manufactured are taken into account upon insertion” (Cornett col. 21, ll. 52-65) by considering the product due date in all cases.
Nakano, Bourne, and Cornett are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of production planning methods.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nakano, Bourne, and Cornett before him or her to modify the production planning method of Nakano and Bourne to include the utilization rate based factors of Cornett.
The motivation for doing so would have been to minimize lost production time. (Cornett Abstract).
Claims 23, 24, 33, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Bourne, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Han, US Publication 2013/0325157 (hereinafter Han), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated February 20, 2025.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano and Bourne does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein analyzing the production sub-lists to determine the production sequences for the relevant plant parts comprises creating graph models for the plant parts, wherein, in a graph model, the products included in the production sub-lists represent a node in the graph model and the nodes are connected to one another via an edge if the relevant products can be manufactured in the plant part without restricting or interrupting production.”
However, Han discloses a method for analyzing a production process “wherein analyzing the production sub-lists to determine the production sequences for the relevant plant parts comprises creating graph models for the plant parts” (Han ¶ 36) by organizing the sequences into a single-pegging graph. Additionally, Han discloses “wherein, in a graph model, the products included in the production sub-lists represent a node in the graph model and the nodes are connected to one another via an edge if the relevant products can be manufactured in the plant part without restricting or interrupting production” (Han ¶ 46) where each node represents a product and the nodes are connected via edges in all instances.
Nakano, Bourne, and Han are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of production planning analysis methods.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nakano, Bourne, and Han before him or her to modify the production planning method of Nakano and Bourne to include the graph data structure of Han.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the complexity in identifying failure points by humans when analyzing prior production planning solutions. (Han ¶¶ 15-16).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Nakano, Bourne, and Han discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 23 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano, Bourne, and Han discloses “wherein analyzing the production sequences of the plant parts to determine the at least one overall production sequence for the production plant comprises evaluating the graph models for the plant parts, wherein products are included in an overall production sequence if such products are connected via an edge for all plant parts in the corresponding graph models” (Han ¶ 75) by giving an example of extracting (i.e., evaluating the graph) the path of nodes that are connected via edges.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano and Bourne does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the method takes into account starting materials and their states for the products to be manufactured.”
However, Han discloses a method for analyzing a production process “wherein the method takes into account starting materials and their states for the products to be manufactured” (Han ¶ 19) where the graph includes a series of stages in the order required to produce the next stage, meaning that the method considers the starting materials and their states by assigning those materials to the lowest stage.
Nakano, Bourne, and Han are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of production planning analysis methods.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nakano, Bourne, and Han before him or her to modify the production planning method of Nakano and Bourne to include the graph data structure including the stages of Han.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the complexity in identifying failure points by humans when analyzing prior production planning solutions. (Han ¶¶ 15-16).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Nakano and Bourne discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano and Bourne does not appear to explicitly disclose “further comprising taking into account, in the determination of the production sequences, whether two products can only be manufactured in a predetermined order without restricting or interrupting production.”
However, Han discloses a method for analyzing a production process “further comprising taking into account, in the determination of the production sequences, whether two products can only be manufactured in a predetermined order without restricting or interrupting production” (Han ¶ 19) where the graph includes a series of stages in the order required to produce the next stage.
Nakano, Bourne, and Han are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of production planning analysis methods.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nakano, Bourne, and Han before him or her to modify the production planning method of Nakano and Bourne to include the graph data structure including the stages of Han.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the complexity in identifying failure points by humans when analyzing prior production planning solutions. (Han ¶¶ 15-16).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Nakano, Bourne, and Han discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 35 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano, Bourne, and Han discloses “wherein analyzing the production sub-lists to determine the production sequences for the relevant plant parts comprises creating graph models for the plant part” (Han ¶ 36) by organizing the sequences into a single-pegging graph. Further, the combination of Nakano, Bourne, and Han discloses “wherein, in a graph model, the products included in the production sub-lists represent a node in the graph model and the nodes are connected to one another via a directed edge, if the corresponding products can be manufactured in the corresponding production order without restricting or interrupting production in the plant part” (Han ¶ 46) where each node represents a product and the nodes are connected via edges in all instances.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Nakano, Bourne, and Han discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 36 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano, Bourne, and Han discloses “wherein analyzing the production sequences of the plant parts to determine at least one overall production sequence for the production plant comprises evaluating the graph models for the plant parts, wherein products are included in an overall production sequence if such products are connected via directed edges for all plant parts in the corresponding graph models” (Han ¶ 75) by giving an example of extracting (i.e., evaluating the graph) the path of nodes that are connected via edges.
Claim 39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Kanazawa et al., US Publication 2007/0150083 (hereinafter Kanazawa), as cited on the Information Disclosure Statement dated February 22, 2024.
Regarding claim 39, Nakano discloses a system for planning production … the production plant comprising a plurality of separate, successive plant parts (Nakano ¶ 34, “production resource[s]”), wherein the products to be manufactured (Nakano ¶ 42, Fig. 2, shows various “product[s]”) in the production plant are available in a production list (Nakano Fig. 2 shows such a production list) and production sub-lists are available for the separate, successive plant parts (Nakano ¶¶ 33-34, each resource candidate is assigned a process for a specific component) or are established from the production list, comprising: “a central data processing device with communication interfaces to the plant parts.” (Nakano ¶ 122). Additionally, (Nakano ¶¶ 33-34, each resource candidate is assigned a process for a specific component discloses “wherein the system is configured to carry out the method according to claim 21” for the reasons discussed above in the rejection to claim 21.
Although not required to disclose the intended use that the planning production is “in a metallurgical production plant for producing metal semi-finished products and/or metal end products,” Nakano does not appear to disclose such a use.
However, Kanazawa discloses that it is well-known to use a system for planning production “in a metallurgical production plant for producing metal semi-finished products and/or metal end products” (Kanazawa Abstract).
Nakano and Kanazawa are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of production planning systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nakano and Kanazawa before him or her to modify the production planning of Nakano to include the particular use in a sheet metal factory of Kanazawa.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that additional uses increase the market for the system, thereby increasing profits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 14, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 8-9) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claims 21-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed May 14, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 due to the addition of the new limitation “producing metal semi-finished products and/or metal end in the production plant in accordance with the at least one overall production sequence” (Remarks 9) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Nakano and Bourne.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed May 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant first argues that the addition of the limitation “producing metal semi-finished products and/or metal end in the production plant in accordance with the at least one overall production sequence” is a step that “cannot reasonably be characterized as a ‘mental process’ capable of performance in the human mind.” (Remarks 7). Applicant continues that his limitation “applies the production-sequence determination to control and coordinate real-world manufacturing operations, resulting in a physical transformation of metal material into manufactured productions” which is “a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(a) and § 2106.05(c).” (Remarks 7). Finally, Applicant concludes that “claim 21 also satisfies Step 2B” because it is a ”specific industrial production activity and tangible output.” (Remarks 7). The examiner disagrees.
While the examiner concedes that the limitation “producing metal semi-finished products and/or metal end in the production plant in accordance with the at least one overall production sequence” is not a mental process, it does not pass step 2B of the analysis. As discussed above, due to the high level of generality with which this limitation is claimed, it merely amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 22-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues that these claim incorporate the same limitation as claim 21 and, therefore, are also patent eligible. (Remarks 7). Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding Applicant’s remaining arguments for the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Applicant first argues that Nakano fails to disclose that “all plant parts” are included in the joint production sequence because “Nakano’s production resources are interchangeable resource candidates, such as robots having different numbers of axes, different accuracies, and different weight capacities” while “Nakano’s planning logic is expressly directed to selecting suitable resource candidates for individual processes, not to defining a production sequence that necessarily includes all such resources” and thus, concludes that “[t]here is neither a reason nor a disclosure in Nakano that would require determining an overall production sequence in which all production resources (robots) are jointly included” because “Nakano’s disclosure teaches selecting among alternative resource candidates, such that many resources are inherently not used in a given plan.” (Remarks 9-10). The examiner disagrees.
Applicant is overly narrowly interpreting the disclosure of Nakano. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there will be situations in which all available production resources are used. This is evidenced by the fact that nowhere in Nakano does it state that such resources are excluded from the determined production sequence.
Further, Applicant’s own claims do not place any requirements on the method to expressly determine that “all” plant parts are included in all instances. Instead, it merely requires that all plant parts are included in the production sequence, which will necessarily occur by happenstance in some instances. Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues that Nakano does not disclose “determining production sequences for relevant plant parts” because “Nakano does not disclose production sequences that are associated with specific plant parts” that “are inherently tied to distinct successive plant parts and that govern how product pass through those plant parts during production.” (Remarks 10). The examiner disagrees.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the plant part “are inherently tied to distinct successive plant parts and that govern how product pass through those plant parts during production”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 22-39 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, respectively, Applicant argues that these claims are allowable for the same reasons as claim 21. (Remarks 10-11). Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights