DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/568,512 filed on January 15, 2024 in which claims 21-40 were presented for examination.
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 21-40 are pending, of which claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101; claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); claims 21, 25-28, 32, 38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(2); and claims 22-24, 29-31, 33-37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed February 22, 2024 and February 13, 2026 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. They have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 24 recites a method claim including the limitation “wherein products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) are included in an overall production sequence if such products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) 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 if an actual interruption-free carrying out in the relevant plant part (2) 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).
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 (P1, P2, P3, P4,P5) 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 (P1, P2, P3, P4,P5) are included in an overall production sequence if such products (P1, P2, P3, P4,P5) 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 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 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 21-40, 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 21-40 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. (New) A method for planning production in a production plant (1) comprising 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), comprising:
analyzing the production sub-lists (4) and determining production sequences for relevant plant parts (2),
wherein those of the products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) that can be manufactured in the relevant plant parts (2) without restricting or interrupting production are combined in each of the production sequences, and analyzing the production sequences of the plant parts (2) and determining at least one overall production sequence for the production plant (1),
wherein an overall production sequence includes those products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) that include all plant parts (2) in a joint 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. (New) A method for planning production in a production plant (1) comprising 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), comprising:
analyzing the production sub-lists (4) and determining production sequences for relevant plant parts (2),
wherein those of the products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) that can be manufactured in the relevant plant parts (2) without restricting or interrupting production are combined in each of the production sequences, and analyzing the production sequences of the plant parts (2) and determining at least one overall production sequence for the production plant (1),
wherein an overall production sequence includes those products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) that include all plant parts (2) in a joint 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 (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)” 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.
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).
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 21-40 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 claims 21, 23, 24, 26-28, 33, 35-37, and 39, these claims refer to “products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5),” or similar. The use of “P1, P2, P3, P4, P5” renders this claim subject to two, mutually exclusive interpretations.
First, this may be interpreted to indicate that five products, P1-P5, are required by the claim. In other words, under this interpretation, this claim would not cover methods that include only three products, for example.
Second, this may be interpreted to indicate that merely a plurality of products are required by the claim. Under this interpretation, any number of products would be included within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 27, this claim refers to an “early stage.” The term “early” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “early” 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. For purposes of examination, the term “early” shall be interpreted as “prior.”
Regarding claim 31, this claim includes the limitation “wherein in an integration of the production sequence to be divided into an overall production sequence is taken into account upon division, such that division of the overall production sequence is avoided.” (Emphasis added).
In the present instance, the use of this “such that” clause renders this claim subject to two, mutually exclusive interpretations.
First, the “such that” clause may be interpreted to state the intended use of the integration of the production sequence. In other words, the goal of the integration is to avoid division of the overall production sequence. Under this interpretation, this limitation would not be subject to patentable weight.
Second, the “such that” clause may be interpreted to require that the integration affirmatively occurs in a manner where there is no division of the overall production sequence. Under this interpretation, this limitation would be subject to patentable weight.
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Regarding claims 22-40, 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. § 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 21, 25-28, 32, 38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(2) as being anticipated by Nakano et al., US Publication 2023/0221706 (hereinafter Nakano).
Regarding claim 21, Nakano discloses a method for planning production in a production plant (1) comprising a plurality of separate, successive plant parts (2) (Nakano ¶ 34, “production resource[s]”), wherein products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) to be manufactured (Nakano ¶ 42, Fig. 2, shows various “product[s]”) in the production plant (1) are available in a production list (3) (Nakano Fig. 2 shows such a production list) and production sub-lists (4) are available for the separate, successive plant parts (2) (Nakano ¶¶ 33-34, each resource candidate is assigned a process for a specific component) or are established from the production list (3), comprising “analyzing the production sub-lists (4) and determining production sequences for relevant plant parts (2)” (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 (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) that can be manufactured in the relevant plant parts (2) without restricting or interrupting production are combined in each of the production sequences, and analyzing the production sequences of the plant parts (2) and determining at least one overall production sequence for the production plant (1)” (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 (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) that include all plant parts (2) in a joint production sequence.” (Nakano ¶ 86).
Regarding claim 25, Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nakano discloses “wherein analyzing the production sub-lists (4) to determine the production sequences for the relevant plant parts (2) comprises creating lists of vectors or adjacency matrices for recording relationship networks” (Nakano ¶ 64) where relationship meshes are list of vectors.
Regarding claim 26, Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nakano discloses “further comprising optimizing a plurality of overall production sequences to determine a master production sequence, which comprises all products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) from the production list (3) and/or the production sub-lists (4) to be manufactured in the production plant (1).” (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 (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) that are manufactured at an early stage in a production sequence, but are only taken into account at a later point in time in subsequent overall production sequences, are taken into account when determining the master production sequence, and/or storage capacities of the production plant (1), the plant parts (2), or intermediate storage facilities” (Nakano ¶ 45) where the weight of all parts are considered when determining the final plan.
Regarding claim 28, Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 26 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nakano discloses “further comprising determining production start times and production end times for the products to be manufactured (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) listed in the production list (3) or in the production sub-lists (4)” (Nakano ¶ 41) by giving an example of a production record including a start and end time.
Regarding claim 32, Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nakano discloses “further comprising optimizing the production sequences for the plant parts (2) with regard to processing by the relevant plant part (2)” (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, Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nakano discloses “further comprising filtering the production list (3) and/or the production sub-lists (4) with respect to delivery dates” (Nakano ¶ 84) where the objective function considers on-time delivery dates.
Regarding claim 40, Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nakano discloses a “computer program, contained in a non-transitory memory, comprising instructions that, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute the method according to claim 21.” (Nakano ¶ 122).
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 22, 29-31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in 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, Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nakano does not appear to explicitly disclose “defining limit values for product properties in the separate plant parts (2) 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 (2) 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 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 and Cornett before him or her to modify the production planning method of Nakano 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, Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 26 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nakano discloses “wherein a prioritization of the plant parts (2) 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.
Nakano does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the prioritization is based on an added value or capacity utilization of the plant parts (2).”
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 (2)” (Cornett col. 16, ll. 49-64) by considering the capacity utilization of the plant parts in the form of their utilization rates.
Nakano 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 and Cornett before him or her to modify the production planning method of Nakano 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 20, Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nakano does not appear to explicitly disclose “further comprising checking the production sequences for the relevant plant parts (2) for an actual interruption-free carrying out in the relevant plant part (2), wherein, upon the checking, operational conditions and processes of the relevant plant part (2) 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 (2) for an actual interruption-free carrying out in the relevant plant part (2)” (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 (2) 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.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Nakano and Cornett discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 30 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano and Cornett discloses “further comprising dividing of production sequences if an actual interruption-free carrying out in the relevant plant part (2) is not possible, wherein in an integration of the production sequence to be divided into an overall production sequence is taken into account upon division, such that division of the overall production sequence is avoided” (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.
Regarding claim 34, Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nakano 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 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 and Cornett before him or her to modify the production planning method of Nakano 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 Han, US Publication 2013/0325157 (hereinafter Han).
Regarding claim 23, Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nakano does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein analyzing the production sub-lists (4) to determine the production sequences for the relevant plant parts (2) comprises creating graph models for the plant parts (2), wherein, in a graph model, the products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) included in the production sub-lists (4) represent a node in the graph model and the nodes are connected to one another via an edge if the relevant products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) can be manufactured in the plant part (2) without restricting or interrupting production.”
However, Han discloses a method for analyzing a production process “wherein analyzing the production sub-lists (4) to determine the production sequences for the relevant plant parts (2) comprises creating graph models for the plant parts (2)” (Han ¶ 36) by organizing the sequences into a single-pegging graph. Additionally, Han discloses “wherein, in a graph model, the products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) included in the production sub-lists (4) represent a node in the graph model and the nodes are connected to one another via an edge if the relevant products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) can be manufactured in the plant part (2) without restricting or interrupting production” (Han ¶ 46) where each node represents a product and the nodes are connected via edges in all instances.
Nakano 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 and Han before him or her to modify the production planning method of Nakano 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 and Han discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 23 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano and Han discloses “wherein analyzing the production sequences of the plant parts (2) to determine the at least one overall production sequence for the production plant comprises evaluating the graph models for the plant parts, wherein products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) are included in an overall production sequence if such products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) 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, Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nakano does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the method takes into account starting materials and their states for the products to be manufactured (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5).”
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 (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5)” (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 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 and Han before him or her to modify the production planning method of Nakano 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, Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Nakano does not appear to explicitly disclose “further comprising taking into account, in the determination of the production sequences, whether two products (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) 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 (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) 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 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 and Han before him or her to modify the production planning method of Nakano 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 and Han discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 35 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano 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 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 (P1, P2, P3, P4,P5) 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 and Han discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 36 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Nakano 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 (P1, P2, P3, P4,P5) are included in an overall production sequence if such products (P1, P2, P3, P4,P5) 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 (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) to be manufactured (Nakano ¶ 42, Fig. 2, shows various “product[s]”) in the production plant (1) are available in a production list (3) (Nakano Fig. 2 shows such a production list) and production sub-lists (4) are available for the separate, successive plant parts (2) (Nakano ¶¶ 33-34, each resource candidate is assigned a process for a specific component) or are established from the production list (3), comprising: “a central data processing device with communication interfaces to the plant parts (2).” (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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Ruml, US Publication 2009/0144261, System and method for using a graph when making a production plan.
Do et al., US Publication 2010/0010657, System and method for using a graph when making a production plan.
Kuhn et al., US Publication 2010/0010952, System and method for using a graph when making a production plan.
Yube et al., US Publication 2022/0058555, System and method for using a graph when making a production plan.
Mukherjee, US Patent 5,197,001, System and method for using a graph when making a production plan.
Bourne et al., US Patent 5,969,973, System and method for using a graph when making a production plan.
Winner et al., US Patent 6,278,901, System and method for using a graph when making a production plan.
Shekhar et al., US Patent 12,547,973, System and method for using a graph when making a production plan.
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