CTNF 18/604,767 CTNF 91881 DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/3/2026 has been entered. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This is in reply to the claim amendments and remarks of the RCE filed 3/3/2026. Claims 1 and 13-14 have been amended. Claims 1-2 and 5-14 are currently pending and have been examined. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority This application claims priority of Foreign Application JP2024-027751 filed on 2/27/2024 and priority of Foreign Application JP2023-046898 filed on 3/23/2023. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged. Acknowledgment is made of applicant' s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Response to Amendments Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejections. Response to Arguments 07-37 Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to the limitations of claims 1-2 and 5-14, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner asserts the claims are directed towards Organizing Human Activity and Mathematical Relationships. Merely performing the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer does not make the claims eligible (See MPEP 2106). Diehr involved a mathematical relationship that specifically controlled how a rubber molding machine worked and operated, where Applicant’s claims generically recite “ control the plurality of production lines to produce the plurality of types of articles according to the distribution pattern ”, which even if not directed towards the abstract idea, because it is just telling a human user what to do, are recited at such a high level of generality that they merely add the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner specifically note that Applicant’s specification makes no mention of any specifics on how the “control” of the production line is actually achieved beyond displaying the plan for a human user to interpret as the plan is output and the word control is not even mentioned in the Applicant’s specification. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Claim Interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-04 AIA Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claims 1-12 recite “an acquisition unit, distribution planning unit, time calculation unit, parameter extraction unit … configured to”, which invokes 112(f). The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. Claims 1-2 and 5-12 recite “an acquisition unit, distribution planning unit, time calculation unit, parameter extraction unit … configured to”, which invokes 112(f). Paragraph 0098 of Applicant’s originally filed specification states “ Each of the acquisition unit 11, the distribution planning units 13 and 13A, the order planning unit 17, the storage unit 18, the output unit 19, and the parameter extraction unit 70 may be configured by one computer or may be configured by a plurality of computers. The production planning devices 1 and 1A are implemented in cooperation with hardware ”, which is being interpreted as the corresponding structure for the claimed units. The Examiner interprets the claimed units to entail the corresponding structure of a general purpose computer or computers. The Examiner notes that this is not a rejection, merely a claim interpretation in light of the specification in correspondence with 35 USC 112(f). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-2 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter; When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In the instant case (Step 1), claims 1-2 and 5-12 are directed toward a system; claims 13 are directed toward a process; and claim 14 is directed towards a product which are statutory categories of invention. Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a production planning device comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire article list information including information regarding a plurality of types of articles ; and a distribution planning unit configured to create distribution plan data for distributing the plurality of types of articles included in the article list information to a plurality of production lines, wherein the distribution planning unit creates the distribution plan data based on entropy associated with loss information regarding loss of production process speed in each of the production lines, wherein the distribution planning unit creates the distribution plan data based on an enthalpy associated with a total number of the plurality of types of articles to be distributed to the respective production lines and on the entropy, the distribution planning unit includes a time calculation unit configured to calculate a predicted processing time of the plurality of types of articles distributed to each of the production lines, and a distribution calculation unit configured to calculate a distribution pattern for distributing the plurality of types of articles included in the article list information to the plurality of respective production lines, based on the predicted processing time calculated by the time calculation unit, and the time calculation unit calculates the predicted processing time based on the entropy and the enthalpy, and the production planning device further comprises an output unit configured to output the distribution plan data created by the distribution planning unit to control the plurality of production lines to produce the plurality of types of articles according to the distribution pattern (Organizing Human Activity and Mathematical Relationships), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.05). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing article list information to create distribution plans for a plurality of production lines based on entropy associated with loss information regarding loss during the production process speed in each production line and enthalpy associated with the number of articles to be distributed to the production lines, which is managing how humans interact for commercial purposes. The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Mathematical Relationships because the claimed limitations are analyzing article list information to create distribution plans for a plurality of production lines based on entropy associated with loss information regarding loss during the production process speed in each production line and enthalpy associated with the number of articles to be distributed to the production lines, and shows the specific mathematical relationship in claims 6-9. Dependent claims 2 and 5-12 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below. Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the independent claims additionally recite “a production planning device comprising: an acquisition unit configured to; and a distribution planning unit configured to; the distribution planning unit includes a time calculation unit configured to; an output unit configured to (claim 1)”; “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for use in an electromagnetic environment analysis method, the program being executed by a processor and causing a computer to execute (claim 14)”, which are additional elements that would not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05) because they are recited at a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology. Claim 13 does not recite any additional elements. In addition, dependent claims 2 and 5-12 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 11 additionally recite “parameter extraction unit” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05). Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05). Further, method; System; and Product Independent claims 1-2 and 5-14 recite a production planning device comprising: an acquisition unit configured to; and a distribution planning unit configured to; the distribution planning unit includes a time calculation unit configured to; an output unit configured to (claim 1)”; “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for use in an electromagnetic environment analysis method, the program being executed by a processor and causing a computer to execute (claim 14); however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0098-0102 and Figures 1. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In addition, claims 2 and 5-12 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 11 additionally recite “parameter extraction unit” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Allowable over 35 USC 103 Claims 1-2 and 5-14 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under §101 for the reasons set forth above. Claims 1-2 and 5-14 disclose a system for analyzing article list information to create distribution plans for a plurality of production lines based on entropy associated with loss information regarding loss during the production process speed in each production line and enthalpy associated with the number of articles to be distributed to the production lines to predict processing time, which recite a specific mathematical relationship for performing the calculation. Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is: Devarakonda et al. ( US 2020/0209811 A1 ) – which discloses manufacturing analysis systems. Cella et al. ( US 2019/0146474 A1 ) – which discloses manufacturing delay analysis and neural network features. The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1-2 and 5-14, such as analyzing article list information to create distribution plans for a plurality of production lines based on entropy associated with loss information regarding loss during the production process speed in each production line and enthalpy associated with the number of articles to be distributed to the production lines to predict processing time, which recite a specific mathematical relationship for performing the calculation. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art. Specifically the claimed “a production planning device comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire article list information including information regarding a plurality of types of articles ; and a distribution planning unit configured to create distribution plan data for distributing the plurality of types of articles included in the article list information to a plurality of production lines, wherein the distribution planning unit creates the distribution plan data based on entropy associated with loss information regarding loss of production process speed in each of the production lines, wherein the distribution planning unit creates the distribution plan data based on an enthalpy associated with a total number of the plurality of types of articles to be distributed to the respective production lines and on the entropy, the distribution planning unit includes a time calculation unit configured to calculate a predicted processing time of the plurality of types of articles distributed to each of the production lines, and a distribution calculation unit configured to calculate a distribution pattern for distributing the plurality of types of articles included in the article list information to the plurality of respective production lines, based on the predicted processing time calculated by the time calculation unit, and the time calculation unit calculates the predicted processing time based on the entropy and the enthalpy, and the production planning device further comprises an output unit configured to output the distribution plan data created by the distribution planning unit to control the plurality of production lines to produce the plurality of types of articles according to the distribution pattern ” make the claims allowable over the prior art. Conclusion The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892 and should be taken into account / considered by the Applicant upon reviewing this office action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached on (571)-270-5389. 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. /MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/604,767 Page 2 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/604,767 Page 3 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/604,767 Page 4 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/604,767 Page 5 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/604,767 Page 6 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/604,767 Page 7 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/604,767 Page 8 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/604,767 Page 9 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/604,767 Page 10 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/604,767 Page 11 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/604,767 Page 12 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/604,767 Page 13 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/604,767 Page 14 Art Unit: 3625
Prosecution Insights