DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in reply to Applicants response after non-final rejection received on November 12, 2025. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application claims priority to U.S. Provisional application 63/608,544 filed on December 11, 2023.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 9, and 17 in the response filed on November 12, 2025. No claims are canceled at this time.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is a system and method for scheduling policy for manufacturing which is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 9 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1 and product Claim 17. Claim 9 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
computing, by a processor, a difference between a first evaluation metric corresponding to a first scheduling policy and a second evaluation metric;
determining, by the processor, that the computed difference is less than a first threshold, and in response, calculate a second scheduling policy;
determining, by the processor, that the second scheduling policy is greater than a second threshold, and in response, calculate a third scheduling policy such that the third scheduling policy is less than the second threshold; and
transmitting, by the processor, a command to a machine of a manufacturing system for deploying the third scheduling policy; and
controlling, based on the command, an order of machine operations for manufacture of a product executed by the machine of manufacturing system based on the third scheduling policy.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Processes”. Calculating a difference between first and second metrics, comparing the difference to a threshold, determining a second scheduling policy is above a threshold, recalculating a third scheduling policy, and controlling the order of operations based on the policy recites a concept performed in the human mind. But for the “processor” and “machine of a manufacturing system” language, the claim encompasses a human performing the difference calculation to create scheduling policy and checking to make sure the policy is below a threshold using his/her mind and/or pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic hardware processor is insufficient to take the claims out of the mental processes grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor and memory storing instructions executed by the processor in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The computer readable medium storing instructions executed by a processor in Claim 17 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 17 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mathematical Concepts”. Calculating a difference between first and second metrics, comparing the difference to a threshold, determining a second scheduling policy is above a threshold and recalculating a third scheduling policy recites mathematical formulas and calculations. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor and memory storing instructions executed by the processor in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The computer readable medium storing instructions executed by a processor in Claim 17 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 17 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite processor and memory storing instructions executed by the processor (Claim 1) a processor (claim 9) and/or computer readable medium storing instructions executed by a processor (Claim 17). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no 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 Applicant’s specification para. [0063] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [a computer system or a server as described in FIG. 6.] and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 9, and 17 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 9, and 17 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
The remarks begin on page 6 of the response on November 12, 2025. The Applicants starts with a summary of the claims and the support for the amendments. Applicants also provide a summary of the interview conducted on October 6, 2025.
The arguments begin with the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112 where the Applicants point to the current amendments of claim 9 which correct the issue. The Applicants request withdrawal of the rejection (remarks page 6).
The Examiner agrees that the amendments have mitigated the rejection at this time.
Next, the arguments move to the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101 where the Applicant recites the two-step framework (remarks page 7) and argues that under Step 2A, Prong Two the claims are tied two a practical application, as the claims improve the functioning of a computer or another technological field (remarks page 8). The Applicant cites [0063] of the specification discussing the electronic manufacturing for multiple diverse products and potential for priority production. Applicant concludes with the claims are directed to efficient scheduling policies for the manufacturing facility to ensure optima operation. Applicant further cites the amended claims including transmitting a command to deploy a third scheduling policy, and controlling the order of machine operations based on the policy. Applicant further argues that the complex computations involves operations which may not be achievable by the human mind.
Applicant further cites the controlling step to a function beyond a mere mathematical concept. The Applicant argues that the claim involves control of a machine of the manufacturing system in order to perform a specific order of machine operations for manufacture of a product. Applicant believes these steps amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The Examiner does not agree. With respect to the Prong Two argument, the examiner finds the argument for improved efficiency and optimization of production to increase or maximize utilization is the most basic example of use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Specifically, the computer is being used to perform the complex mathematical calculations which exist in the world of mathematical modeling and queuing theory and relate to optimization of flow, production, and movement. Additionally the courts have established that use of a computer for evaluation of efficiency and performance of optimization, which is rooted in mathematical concepts, are positions that do not meaningfully limit the claims.
“The use of a computer in a generalized fashion to increase efficiency does not meaningfully limit the otherwise abstract claims. In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieve more quickly, i.e. through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations. SiRF Tech., Inc.”
“OIP Technologies, Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., says relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible” (from PTAB)
Simply applying a computer or processor to optimize the schedule for maximum efficiency is not more than using a computer as a tool to perform the complex mathematics necessary. This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Also, the Examiner is not convinced by the argument for the controlling step. In this language the claim does not include direct control of one or more machines of the manufacturing system. Rather the control is the order of operations in the scheduling policy. This is more of controlling the order in which the machines are used based on the scheduling policy as opposed to the processor issuing control signals directly to the machines. This is similar to iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
The arguments move to the position that at least claim 1 is unconventional technical features which have been proven by clear and convincing evidence as no evidence of the features were expressly supported in writing with evidence (remarks page 11).
The Examiner disagrees since arguments regarding the lack of prior art do not invalidate or overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C § 101 (see PTAB decision 13/184,326): An abstract idea does not transform into an inventive concept just because the prior art does not disclose or suggest it.
The arguments continue with the position that the claim amendments incorporate the inventive concept and that ”controlling, based on the command, an order or machine operations for manufacture of a product… based on the scheduling policy” achieves efficient scheduling policies for the manufacturing system and optima operation of the system based on the scheduling policy. Applicant submits this is not directed to an abstract idea but a specific improvement to an existing technology. Using this position the Applicant claims the subject matter of the claims is eligible and does not fall into any of the groupings.
The Examiner does not agree. The claim limitation of controlling is controlling the order in which the machines are operated. Not controlling them machines of the manufacturing system. Since the processor is controlling the order in which the machines are used in the production, under broadest reasonable interpretation, one could think that the machines are controlled with human involvement. This concept of the processor controlling the order in which the machines are used is simply allowing it to perform the complex mathematics related to optimizing the schedule to maximize the operation time of each machine to improve overall efficiency. We have several examples where the courts have established that using a computer as a tool does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The Applicants arguments move to Step 2B of the analysis (remarks page 12) where the Applicants argue that similar to McRO the “control, based on a command, an order of machine operations for manufacture of a product… based on a third scheduling policy” is significantly more and an improvement to conventional manufacturing.
The Examiner still disagrees. As answered above, the control is controlling the order of each machine used in the manufacture. The processor or computer is not controlling the actual machines in the manufacturing system. This leaves open the idea that under BRI, a human is simply executing the step of starting and finishing the production based on the scheduling policy organized by the processor. The claim language states “transmitting, by the processor, a command to a machine of a manufacturing system for deploying the third scheduling policy”. This command is to deploy the scheduling policy to the system. Additionally “controlling, based on the command, an order of machine operations for the system based on the scheduling policy is not controlling the machines rather controlling order of machine operations based on the policy. The control of the machines is open to human involvement.
In summary, the amendments and arguments are not persuasive. The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 March 2, 2026