DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/568,512 filed on July 31, 2026 in which claims 21, 23-25, 30-32, 36, 37, 39, and 41 were amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 31, 2026 has been entered.
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, 26, 32, 33, 35, 39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and claims
Claim Interpretation
Claim 23 recites a method claim including the limitation “wherein, in each graph model, products included in the production sub-lists assigned to the corresponding plant part represent nodes, and the graph model is generated by determining, for pairs of products in the production sub-list assigned to the corresponding plant part, whether the pair of products can be manufactured in the corresponding plant part without restricting or interrupting production, and connecting the nodes representing the pair of products by an edge when the determining is positive.” (Emphasis added). Because this claim allows for a situation in which the determining is negative, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the step of connecting the nodes by an edge 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 each graph model, products included in the production sub-lists assigned to the corresponding plant part represent nodes, and the graph model is generated by determining, for ordered pairs of products in the production sub-list assigned to the corresponding plant part, whether the ordered pair can be manufactured in the corresponding production order without restricting or interrupting production in the corresponding plant part, and connecting the nodes of an ordered pair by a directed edge only when the determining is positive.” (Emphasis added). Because this claim allows for a situation in which the determining is negative, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the step of connecting the nodes by an edge 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 37 recites a method claim including the limitation “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 only when the evaluating determines that the products are connected by directed edges in corresponding graph models of all plant parts in an order that can be manufactured by each plant part without restricting or interrupting production, and wherein products that are not connected by directed edges in the corresponding graph model of at least one plant part are excluded from the overall production sequence.” (Emphasis added). Because this claim allows for a situation in which the evaluation results in only one of the (1) products are connected by direct edges or (2) products are not connected by direct edges, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require both products to be included and products to be excluded from the production list. 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 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 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is an extraneous space between the word “sequence” and the comma in the third to last line of this claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 26, 32, 33, 35, 39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanazawa et al., US Publication 2007/0150083 (hereinafter Kanazawa), as cited on the Information Disclosure Statement dated February 2, 2024.
Regarding claim 21, Kanazawa discloses a “method for planning and carrying out metallurgical production in a metallurgical production plant comprising a plurality of separate, successive plant parts, the separate, successive plant parts carrying out different process steps” (Kanazawa ¶¶ 81, 86, 91) where the processing installation includes at least a CNC apparatus and a peripheral device (i.e., separate, successive plant parts, Kanazawa ¶ 81), with the CNC apparatus carrying out processing steps such as punching (Kanazawa ¶ 86) and the peripheral device carries out a different process step such as loading and unloading (Kanazawa ¶ 91, see also ¶ 89, Fig. 2). Additionally, Kanazawa discloses “wherein an intermediate product manufactured in one plant part serves as an input product for a subsequent plant part” (Kanazawa ¶ 89) where the material output by the CNC apparatus is the input for the unloading process. Further, Kanazawa discloses “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.” (Kanazawa ¶ 106, Fig. 3). Moreover, Kanazawa discloses “comprising: for each of the plant parts, analyzing the production sub-lists assigned to the respective plant part and determining a plant-part-specific production sequence for the respective plant part, wherein, for each respective plant part, those of the products that can be manufactured in the respective plant part without restricting or interrupting production are combined in the plant-part-specific production sequence for the respective plant part” (Kanazawa ¶ 79) by determining nesting part data (i.e., combining the production sequence for the respective CNC apparatus) and determining processing data (i.e., a plant-part specific prediction sequence). Because the components are being nested on the same piece of sheet metal, they do not restrict or interrupt production. Likewise, Kanazawa discloses “analyzing the plant-part-specific production sequences of the plant parts and determining at least one overall production sequence for the production plant” (Kanazawa ¶ 83) where job controller 114 generates an overall production sequence based on the data from the Dynamic Nesting CAM 113. Kanazawa also discloses “wherein the determining of the at least one overall production sequence comprises determining, from the plant-part-specific production sequences, products that are included in a joint production sequence for all plant parts, and including those products in the at least one overall production sequence, wherein each product included in the at least one overall production sequence requires production in the same plant parts and is assigned to be processed by the plant parts in the succession of the plant parts” (Kanazawa ¶¶ 86-87) where the nested products (i.e., products included in the joint production sequence) are sent to CNC apparatus 136 and peripheral device 140, meaning that they require production in the same plant parts and are assigned to be processed by that succession of plant parts. In addition, Kanazawa discloses “producing metal semi-finished products and/or metal end products in the metallurgical production plant in accordance with the at least one overall production sequence” (Kanazawa ¶ 87) by performing sheet metal processing. Finally, Kanazawa discloses “including carrying out the different process steps in the plant parts according to the at least one overall production sequence.” (Kanazawa ¶ 88, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 26, Kanazawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kanazawa 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” (Kanazawa ¶ 109, Fig. 5) by giving an example of a master production sequence.
Regarding claim 32, Kanazawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kanazawa discloses “further comprising optimizing the production sequences for the plant parts with regard to processing by the plant part” (Kanazawa ¶ 79) where nesting is a form of optimization.
Regarding claim 33, Kanazawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kanazawa discloses “wherein the method takes into account starting materials and their states for the products to be manufactured” (Kanazawa ¶ 79) by considering the sheet metal (i.e., starting material and its state) when determining the nesting.
Regarding claim 35, Kanazawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kanazawa discloses “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” (Kanazawa ¶ 79) where nesting manufactures multiple products on a single piece of sheet metal (i.e., without restricting or interrupting production)
Regarding claim 39, it merely recites a system for performing the method of claim 1. The system comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the various functions. Kanazawa comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 39 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 21.
Regarding claim 41, Kanazawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kanazawa discloses “wherein each of the plurality of separate, successive plant parts is 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” (Kanazawa ¶ 181) where, because the resultant sheet is “finished,” the successive plant parts at least comprise “a finishing line.”
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 Kanazawa 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, Kanazawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kanazawa 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.
Kanazawa 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 Kanazawa and Cornett before him or her to modify the production planning method of Kanazawa 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, Kanazawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 26 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kanazawa 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.
Kanazawa 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.
Kanazawa 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 Kanazawa and Cornett before him or her to modify the production planning method of Kanazawa 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, Kanazawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kanazawa does not appear to explicitly disclose “further comprising checking the production sequences for the plant parts for an actual interruption-free carrying out in the plant part, wherein, upon the checking, operational conditions and processes of the 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.
Kanazawa 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 Kanazawa and Cornett before him or her to modify the production planning method of Kanazawa 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 Kanazawa and Cornett discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 30 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kanazawa and Cornett discloses “further comprising identifying, based on the checking, at least one production sequence for which interruption-free carrying out in the plant part is not possible, and dividing the identified production sequence into divided production sequences, wherein, during division, the production sequence to be divided is integrated into an overall production sequence without dividing the overall production sequence” (Cornett col. 4, ll. 5-18l 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. The already scheduled downtime is based on checking the production schedule to identify production lines that are going to be offline, thus indicating that any production sequences require interruption.
Regarding claim 34, Kanazawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kanazawa discloses “further comprising inserting a new product to be manufactured into existing production sequences and/or an overall production sequence” (Kanazawa ¶ 79) where nesting inserts a new product into the empty space of the sheet metal.
Kanazawa does not appear to explicitly disclose “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.
Kanazawa 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 Kanazawa and Cornett before him or her to modify the production planning method of Kanazawa 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, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa in view of Han, US Publication 2013/0325157 (hereinafter Han), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated February 20, 2025.
Regarding claim 23, Kanazawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kanazawa 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 plant parts comprises creating, for each plant part, a graph model” (Han ¶ 36) by organizing the sequences into a single-pegging graph. Additionally, Han discloses “wherein, in each graph model, products included in the production sub-lists assigned to the corresponding plant part represent nodes, and the graph model is generated by determining, for pairs of products in the production sub-list assigned to the corresponding plant part, whether the pair of products can be manufactured in the corresponding plant part without restricting or interrupting production, and connecting the nodes representing the pair of products by an edge when the determining is positive” (Han ¶ 46) where each node represents a product and the nodes are connected via edges in all instances.
Kanazawa 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 Kanazawa and Han before him or her to modify the production planning method of Kanazawa 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 Kanazawa and Han discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 23 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kanazawa 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 the evaluating determines which products are connected via an edge in the corresponding graph models for all plant parts, and wherein the at least one overall production sequence includes products determined to be connected via an edge in the corresponding graph models for all plant parts” (Han ¶ 75) by giving an example of extracting (i.e., evaluating the graph) the path of nodes that are connected via edges.
Regarding claim 36, Kanazawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 35 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kanazawa does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein analyzing the production sub-lists to determine the production sequences for the plant parts comprises creating, for each plant part, a graph model, wherein, in each graph model, products included in the production sub-lists assigned to the corresponding plant part represent nodes, and the graph model is generated by determining, for ordered pairs of products in the production sub-list assigned to the corresponding plant part, whether the ordered pair can be manufactured in the corresponding production order without restricting or interrupting production in the corresponding plant part, and connecting the nodes of an ordered pair by a directed edge only when the determining is positive.”
However, Han discloses a method for analyzing a production process “wherein analyzing the production sub-lists to determine the production sequences for the plant parts comprises creating, for each plant part, a graph model” (Han ¶ 36) by organizing the sequences into a single-pegging graph.
Additionally, as discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require the limitation “wherein, in each graph model, products included in the production sub-lists assigned to the corresponding plant part represent nodes, and the graph model is generated by determining, for ordered pairs of products in the production sub-list assigned to the corresponding plant part, whether the ordered pair can be manufactured in the corresponding production order without restricting or interrupting production in the corresponding plant part, and connecting the nodes of an ordered pair by a directed edge only when the determining is positive,” thereby rendering it obvious.
Kanazawa 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 Kanazawa and Han before him or her to modify the production planning method of Kanazawa 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).
Claims 25-28, 32, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa in view of Nakano et al., US Publication 2023/0221706 (hereinafter Nakano) as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated February 20, 2026.
Regarding claim 25, Kanazawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kanazawa does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein analyzing the production sub-lists to determine the production sequences for the plant parts comprises creating lists of vectors or adjacency matrices for recording relationship networks.”
However, Nakano discloses “wherein analyzing the production sub-lists to determine the production sequences for the plant parts comprises creating lists of vectors or adjacency matrices for recording relationship networks” (Nakano ¶ 64) where relationship meshes are list of vectors.
Kanazawa and Nakano are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of methods for planning and carrying out production in a production plant.
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 Kanazawa and Nakano before him or her to modify the production sequences of Kanazawa to include the vectors and adjacency matrices of Nakano.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Kanazawa teaches the “base device” for generating a production schedule. Further, Nakano teaches the “known technique” for using vectors and adjacency matrices to define a production sequence that is applicable to the base device of Kanazawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because such a modification is merely how the production sequence is transcribed and does not affect the execution of the production sequence.
Regarding claim 26, Kanazawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kanazawa does not appear to explicitly disclose “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.”
However, Nakano 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).
Kanazawa and Nakano are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of methods for planning and carrying out production in a production plant.
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 Kanazawa and Nakano before him or her to modify the production sequence of Kanazawa to include the optimized master production sequence of Nakano.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an optimized production sequence provides the benefits inherent in optimization.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Kanazawa and Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 26 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kanazawa and 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.
Kanazawa and Nakano are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of methods for planning and carrying out production in a production plant.
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 Kanazawa and Nakano before him or her to modify the production sequence determination of Kanazawa to include the weighting-based determination of Nakano.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Kanazawa teaches the “base device” for determining a production sequence. Further, Nakano teaches the “known technique” of using weights to determine a production sequence that is applicable to the base device of Kanazawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because weight-based determination systems are well-known in the art to provide the benefit of allowing for the prioritization of the more important data.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Kanazawa and Nakano discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 26 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kanazawa and Nakano 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.
Kanazawa and Nakano are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of methods for planning and carrying out production in a production plant.
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 Kanazawa and Nakano before him or her to modify the end times of Kanazawa (see, for example, Figs. 8-9) to include the start and stop times of Nakano.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Kanazawa teaches the “base device” of determining a production sequence. Further, Nakano teaches the “known technique” of including a start and stop time in a production sequence that is applicable to the base device of Kanazawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because providing the start and end times provides the recognized benefit of providing additional data in which to organize the production.
Regarding claim 38, Kanazawa discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kanazawa does not appear to explicitly disclose “further comprising filtering the production list and/or the production sub-lists with respect to delivery dates.”
However, Nakano 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.
Kanazawa and Nakano are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of methods for planning and carrying out production in a production plant.
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 Kanazawa and Nakano before him or her to modify the production sequences of Kanazawa to include the filtering of Nakano.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Kanazawa teaches the “base device” for determining production sequences. Further, Nakano teaches the “known technique” for filtering the production lists that is applicable to the base device of Kanazawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because filtering provides the well-known benefit of reducing the data to be searched by removing unnecessary data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 37 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner was unable to locate prior art within the field of production sequence planning to teach or suggest the limitations “wherein products are included in an overall production sequence only when the evaluating determines that the products are connected by directed edges in corresponding graph models of all plant parts in an order that can be manufactured by each plant part without restricting or interrupting production, and wherein products that are not connected by directed edges in the corresponding graph model of at least one plant part are excluded from the overall production sequence.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 31, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 21-38 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and the rejection of claims 21-39 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Remarks 13-16) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 21-38 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and the rejection of claims 21-39 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed July 31, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 21-36, 38, 39, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (Remarks 16-21) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed July 31, 2026, with respect to the objection of claims 21, 26, 27, 29, 34, 38, and 39 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that because the claims are definite, the objection should be withdrawn. (Remarks 13). The examiner disagrees.
Applicant appears to misunderstand the difference between and objection and a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) may be based on whether or not the claims are definite. Definiteness, however, is wholly irrelevant to whether or not an objection is appropriate. See MPEP § 706.01. As a result, Applicant’s argument is not responsive to the objection made. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Kuroki et al., US Publication 2016/0189072, System and method for using a graph to represent a production schedule in a factory.
Pack, US Publication 2023/0053175, System and method for using a graph to represent a production schedule in a factory.
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