DETAILED ACTION
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 the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 17 are currently amended.
Claim 8 is previously canceled.
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Arguments page 16
Claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’).
Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory in Content Extraction is according to the court an abstract idea that is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts. Present claim 1 is collecting and analyzing production process data using a generic computer processor to determine scheduling and control instruction for a production line. Claim 1 primarily focused on organizing human activities and mathematical concepts. Scheduling, storing work orders, and calculating delivery indicators are considered fundamental economic practices or “mental process” that can be performed by a human on a pen and paper. In addition, identifying production sequences based on production grade and transition cost is a business management method for optimizing production efficiency, Which the court (Alice, Bilski) generally categorized as abstract practices.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on the similarity of the idea described in this claim to several abstract ideas found by the courts that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Arguments page 16
Further, the additional elements in the claims (“for controlling a production management system, wherein the production management system comprises a management server and a production line end, wherein the production line end comprises a plurality of production lines, the management server comprises a processor, a communication circuit unit and an input/output unit, and through the processor configured to:”, “by the communication circuit unit”, “by the communication circuit unit,”, “and instruct the input/output unit to”) do not improve any existing technology.
The present claims recite “generate a control instruction based on the one or more sorted to-be-scheduled work orders, the control instruction configured for execution by the target to-be-scheduled production line; transmit, by the communication circuit unit, the control instruction to the production line end to schedule a first-order target to-be-scheduled work order in the one or more sorted to-be-scheduled work orders to the target to-be-scheduled production line for production” which, with the broadest reasonable interpretation, does not positively recite actual production execution as argued by Applicant in page 16 “generating control instructions configured for execution by production lines; and transmitting the control instructions to the production line end for actual production execution”
Applicant’s arguments in page 17, hierarchical sorting and reduce transition cost, do not have anything to do with technical improvement. Instead, it uses the computer as a tool to automate a non-technical business process.
Arguments in page 19 regarding the control are not persuasive because the control language in claim “generate a control instruction based on the one or more sorted to-be-scheduled work orders, the control instruction configured for execution by the target to-be-scheduled production line; transmit, by the communication circuit unit, the control instruction to the production line end to schedule a first-order target to-be-scheduled work order in the one or more sorted to-be-scheduled work orders to the target to-be-scheduled production line for production; and instruct the input/output unit to update and display a scheduling result of each of the production lines according to the target to-be-scheduled work order” does not exclude a human/machine operator executing the displayed control instructions.
Arguments in page 20 regarding the technical steps are concrete technical solution to a technical problem are not persuasive because steps like receive, calculate, sort, generate, transmit, and display describe standard computer operations rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem.
Arguments in page 21 (Example 45) would be persuasive if the control step in the present claim is positively recited and fully supported by the original disclosure.
Arguments in page 22 (analogy Example 47 and Example 40) are not persuasive. In Example 47 the technical improvement is obvious to a skilled in the art. As Applicant stated “the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field." Steps (d)-(f) involved "generating a composite score," "determining the... packet is a malicious... packet," "dropping the one or more malicious network packets," and "blocking future traffic from the source address."” On the other hand, “transmitting the control instruction to the production line end to schedule production” does not really mean controlling any production machine. The control step in the present claims needs to be positively recited.
Arguments in page 23 regarding the specification support of technical improvement are not persuasive because a skilled in the art would distinguish between an actual technical improvement and a business process improvement. The present claims describe an improvement to a business process (scheduling efficiency and cost reduction) rather than an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or a specific technical solution to a technical problem in the production line. The present claims, by updating and displaying scheduling results, are similar to collecting data from multiple sources and displaying it for monitoring purposes in Electric Power Group.
As a result, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two.
Arguments in pages 24-27
Because the Examiner has determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the Examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making this Step 2B determination, the Examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The Examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step,’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B” Id. In this part of the analysis, the Examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the steps of generating production line control instruction are accomplished in a non-conventional way. The present claims recite standard components: a “management server,” “processor,” “communication circuit unit,” and “input/output unit.” Simply saying “do it on a computer” does not provide an inventive step as argued by Applicant. Further, the fact that the claimed steps are distinguished from the prior arts does not automatically provide an inventive concept under 35 USC § 101.
The Examiner therefore concludes that the claims used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea of scheduling work orders to production lines and that there is no improvement to an “existing technology.”
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-7 and 9-17 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of scheduling work orders to production lines.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “A production scheduling method, the method comprises: receive work order data and production line status data of each of the production lines from the production line end over a network connection; Identify a target to-be-scheduled production line in the production lines according to the received production line status data; select one or more to-be-scheduled work orders from one or more work orders corresponding to the work order data according to target production line status data corresponding to the target to-be-scheduled production line and the work order data; determine a production process direction, corresponding to the target to-be- scheduled production line, of each of the one or more to-be-scheduled work orders according to the target production line status data, product data, and a product grade of each of the to-be- scheduled work orders, wherein determine the production process direction comprises: Identifying a first production process sequence corresponding to a first product grade of a first to-be-scheduled work order according to the product grade and the product data; identifying a second production process sequence of the most recently completed product grade of the target to-be-scheduled production line according to the target production line status data; if the first production process sequence is not earlier than the second production process sequence, determining that the production process direction of the first to-be-scheduled work order corresponding to the target to-be- scheduled production line is the first production process direction; and if the first production process sequence is earlier than the second production process sequence, determining that the production process direction of the first to-be-scheduled work order corresponding to the target to-be- scheduled production line is the second production process direction; calculate a production cycle indicator of each of the to-be-scheduled work orders according to a production cycle day, a scheduling date, and a delivery date of the each of the to-be-scheduled work orders, wherein the production cycle indicator represents a quantity of remaining product-specific production cycles until a delivery date and when the scheduling date is later than the delivery date, the production cycle indicator is set directly to 0;sort, by applying a hierarchical sorting rule, the one or more to-be-scheduled work orders to obtain one or more sorted to-be-scheduled work orders according to the production cycle indicator, the determined production process direction, and grade transition cost of each of the one or more to-be-scheduled work orders, wherein the hierarchical sorting rule is configured to reduce the grade transition cost by aligning a production sequence of the one or more sorted to-be-scheduled work orders with physical characteristics of product grades associated with the one or more to-be-scheduled work orders; generate a control instruction based on the one or more sorted to-be-scheduled work orders, the control instruction configured for execution by the target to-be-scheduled production line; transmit the control instruction to the production line end to schedule a first-order target to-be-scheduled work order in the one or more sorted to-be-scheduled work orders to the target to-be-scheduled production line for production; and update and display a scheduling result of each of the production lines according to the target to-be-scheduled work order”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for scheduling work orders to production lines. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 17 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-7 and 9-16 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for scheduling work orders to production lines. As a result, claims 2-7 and 9-16 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “for controlling a production management system, wherein the production management system comprises a management server and a production line end, wherein the production line end comprises a plurality of production lines, the management server comprises a processor, a communication circuit unit and an input/output unit, and through the processor configured to:”, “by the communication circuit unit”, “by the communication circuit unit,”, “and instruct the input/output unit to”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “receiving” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “receiving” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 17 further recites “A production management system, comprising: a management server, wherein the management server comprises a processor and an input/output unit; and a production line end, wherein the production line end comprises a plurality of production lines, wherein the processor and the production line end are connected through a network connection, wherein the processor is configured to execute a plurality of program modules to implement a production scheduling method, and the method comprises”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 10 and 19 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-7 and 9-16 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 17. As a result, claims 2-7 and 9-16 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “for controlling a production management system, wherein the production management system comprises a management server and a production line end, wherein the production line end comprises a plurality of production lines, the management server comprises a processor, a communication circuit unit and an input/output unit, and through the processor configured to:”, “by the communication circuit unit”, “by the communication circuit unit,”, “and instruct the input/output unit to”. The step of “receiving” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “receiving” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 17 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 17 further recites “A production management system, comprising: a management server, wherein the management server comprises a processor and an input/output unit; and a production line end, wherein the production line end comprises a plurality of production lines, wherein the processor and the production line end are connected through a network connection, wherein the processor is configured to execute a plurality of program modules to implement a production scheduling method, and the method comprises”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 10 and 19 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-7 and 9-16 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 17. As a result, claims 2-7 and 9-16 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights