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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 01/26/2026. Amending claims 1, 8, and 15.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 is updated in light of the amendments.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103- Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-17, filed 01/26/2026, with respect to the art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive, the rejection under 35 USC 102/103 has been withdrawn. No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument received 01/26/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 9-10 of the remarks): abstract idea
Independent claim 1, as amended, requires in part: (i) "obtaining, by an order forecasting manager, a time series dataset associated with the order processing for an order processing system executing on a plurality of computing devices", (ii) "wherein the time series datasets is partitioned based on a plurality of epicenters under which orders are executed", and (iii) "wherein the order forecasting manager is implemented as a first logical device executing on one of the plurality of computing devices". Amended independent claims 9 and 16 contain similar limitations.
As a practical matter, the human mind is not equipped to perform this method. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(11l)(A). The method, as claimed, requires obtaining time series datasets associated with logical devices and partitioning the time series datasets based on epicenters. As a result of the accumulation of steps, the method, as a whole, cannot be performed by a human mind without the use of a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(11). Subsequently, because the claims, as amended, cannot be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, the amended claims fail to recite a mental process (i.e., an abstract idea), and the analysis under the Mayo/Alice Test should end with a conclusion that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter, and the independent claims should be considered patent eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Independent Claims 1, similar steps likewise reflect in claims 11 and 21, the claims, when “taken as a whole,” are directed to the abstract idea and substantially recite the limitations: A method for managing order processing, the method comprising:
(claim 15 further recite applying a weekly aggregation on raw data) obtaining, by an order forecasting manager, a time series dataset associated with the order processing for an order processing system executing on a plurality of computing devices,
Wherein the time series datasets are partitioned based on a plurality of epicenters under which orders are executed, and
Wherein the order forecasting manager is implemented as a first logical device executing on one of the plurality of computing devices;
generating a forecasting model for the time series dataset using a data processing module;
calculating a conformity score on the forecasting model to determine a dynamic resource allocation of the order processing system;
performing an agent deployment for a plurality of agents of the order processing system based on the dynamic resource allocation, wherein the plurality of agents each provide services associated with order processing, wherein each of the plurality of agents is implemented as a second logical device each executing on one of the plurality of computing devices, and
wherein each second logical device uses computing resource when executing on the one of the plurality of computing devices;
performing a multi-parameter optimization of a set of parameters of the forecasting model based on the agent deployment to obtain an updated forecasting model; and
generating a resource allocation output based on the updated forecasting model, wherein the resource allocation output comprises a number of agents to be deployed for a second agent deployment, and
wherein the resource allocation output impacts a total computing resource use of the plurality of computing devices and a computing resource use of each of the plurality of epicenters.
The Applicant's Specification titled " CONFORMITY-DRIVEN ADAPTIVE RESOURCE OPTIMIZATION FOR DYNAMIC ALLOCATION" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to generate a resource allocation output based on different data " (Spec. figure 3).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are recites the abstract idea of generate a resource allocation output based on different timeseries data. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of generate a resource allocation output based on different data. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to Certain methods of organizing human activity –commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind by generate a resource allocation output based on analyzing different received data. These determinations evaluation could be done the same way mentally or manually with a pen and paper. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to Mental Processes –concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion);” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant argues (Pages 13-13 of the remarks): prong two
the independent claims, as amended, integrate all concepts therein into the practical applications. As to amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the concepts therein are
integrated into a practical application of managing computing resources of a computing
environment by increasing or decreasing deployed logical devices ( e.g., agents), which increases or decreases computing resource use within the computing environment. Thus, like the patent at issue in Enfish, the concepts in the claims are integrated into a practical application. Further, the practical application is one that cannot be performed in the human mind and is necessarily only able to be performed in a computing environment. See MPEP § 2106.06(b ). Applicant respectfully asserts that such actions are clearly a practical application into which the concepts in amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are integrated and are not "no more than adding insignificantly
extra-solution activity to the judicial exception". As such, the claims are not "directed" to an abstract idea, and the rejection should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Second, In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation of a system, processor, memory, computing devices, logic devices, processing system, forecasting model, processing module, and a non-transitory computer readable medium are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The use of generic computer component to “generating a resource allocation output based on a forecasting” does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The additional elements of a “model”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “model” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
Applicant argues (Page 14 of the remarks): step 2B
The Examiner has failed to consider the additional elements as a whole. As such, Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice Test can be answered with a "yes", and the rejection should be withdrawn. See MPEP § 2106(I)(B).
In view of the above, Applicant respectfully asserts that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, 8, and 15 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include a system, processor, memory, computing devices, logic devices, processing system, forecasting model, processing module, and a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claims are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions.
Further, with data mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data) the courts have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.059d)).
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
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 non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-7 are directed to method (process), claims 8-14 are directed to a non-transitory (machine) and claims 15-20 are directed to “system” (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A method for managing order processing, the method comprising:
(claim 15 further recite applying a weekly aggregation on raw data) obtaining, by an order forecasting manager, a time series dataset associated with the order processing for an order processing system executing on a plurality of computing devices,
Wherein the time series datasets are partitioned based on a plurality of epicenters under which orders are executed, and
Wherein the order forecasting manager is implemented as a first logical device executing on one of the plurality of computing devices;
generating a forecasting model for the time series dataset using a data processing module;
calculating a conformity score on the forecasting model to determine a dynamic resource allocation of the order processing system;
performing an agent deployment for a plurality of agents of the order processing system based on the dynamic resource allocation, wherein the plurality of agents each provide services associated with order processing, wherein each of the plurality of agents is implemented as a second logical device each executing on one of the plurality of computing devices, and
wherein each second logical device uses computing resource when executing on the one of the plurality of computing devices;
performing a multi-parameter optimization of a set of parameters of the forecasting model based on the agent deployment to obtain an updated forecasting model; and
generating a resource allocation output based on the updated forecasting model, wherein the resource allocation output comprises a number of agents to be deployed for a second agent deployment, and
wherein the resource allocation output impacts a total computing resource use of the plurality of computing devices and a computing resource use of each of the plurality of epicenters.
The Applicant's Specification titled " CONFORMITY-DRIVEN ADAPTIVE RESOURCE OPTIMIZATION FOR DYNAMIC ALLOCATION" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to generate a resource allocation output based on different data " (Spec. figure 3).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are recites the abstract idea of generate a resource allocation output based on different data. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of generate a resource allocation output based on different data. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to Certain methods of organizing human activity –commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind by generate a resource allocation output based on analyzing different received data. These determinations evaluation could be done the same way mentally or manually with a pen and paper. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to Mental Processes –concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion);” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (Similarly claims 9) applying a weekly aggregation on raw data to obtain the time series dataset, wherein the raw data comprises daily data points associated with the order processing.
claim 3 (Similarly claims 10, and 16) wherein the data processing module partitions the time series dataset into a training dataset, a test dataset, and a calibration dataset.
claim 4 (Similarly claims 11, and 17) wherein the forecasting model is based on the training dataset, and wherein the forecasting model is validated using the test dataset.
claim 5 (Similarly claims 12, and 18) wherein the conformity score is generated by applying a function to data points of the forecasting model and data points of the calibration dataset.
claim 6 (Similarly claims 13, and 19) wherein the updated forecasting model indicates a high number of orders during a future period in time, and wherein performing the agent deployment comprises increasing a number of agents of the plurality of agents for order processing during the future period in time.
claim 7 (Similarly claims 14 and 20) wherein the updated forecasting model indicates a low number of orders during a future period in time, and wherein performing the agent deployment comprises decreasing a number of agents of the plurality of agents for order processing during the future period in time.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. Processing system, forecasting model, processing module
Claim 8. non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable program code, which when executed by a computer processor enables the computer processor to perform a method for managing order processing, Processing system, forecasting model, processing module
Claim 15. A system, comprising: a processor; and memory including instructions, which when executed by the processor, Processing system, forecasting model, processing module
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 8 and 15 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a system, processor, memory, computing devices, logic devices, processing system, forecasting model, processing module, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 1). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The additional elements of a “model”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “model” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for generate a resource allocation output based on different data and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention generate a resource allocation output based on different data. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8 and 15. furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, 8, and 15 include a system, processor, memory, computing devices, logic devices, processing system, forecasting model, processing module, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to generate a resource allocation output based on different data.
Claims 1-20 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, No art rejections has been put forth in the rejection.
The closest prior art of record are Wicaksono et al. US 2024/0412131: Contact center workload forecasts covering varying timeseries granularities and operating horizons, Noble, Jr. et al. US 8,935,172: Fulfilling staffing requirements via interactive voice response system, Ajroldi, Niccolò, et al. "Conformal prediction bands for two-dimensional functional time series." Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 187 (2023): 107821., D’Attilio et al. US 2022/0027837: Method and system for scalable contact center agent scheduling utilizing automated AI modeling and multi-objective optimization.
None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, “Wherein the time series datasets are partitioned based on a plurality of epicenters under which orders are executed, and Wherein the order forecasting manager is implemented as a first logical device executing on one of the plurality of computing devices; … wherein each of the plurality of agents is implemented as a second logical device each executing on one of the plurality of computing devices, and wherein each second logical device uses computing resource when executing on the one of the plurality of computing devices; … wherein the resource allocation output comprises a number of agents to be deployed for a second agent deployment, and wherein the resource allocation output impacts a total computing resource use of the plurality of computing devices and a computing resource use of each of the plurality of epicenters.”. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in the instant application is not apply because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marinkovich et al. US 2022/0196889: Variable focus liquid lens optical assembly for value chain networks.
De Piante et al. US 2025/0200420: Automated forecasting models provider.
Perneti et al. US 2022/0091915: Device failure prediction using filter-based feature selection and a conformal prediction framework.
D’Attilio et al. US 2022/0027837: Method and system for scalable contact center agent scheduling utilizing automated AI modeling and multi-objective optimization.
Taylor US 2017/0091622: Systems and methods for generating forecasting models.
Hubbs CA 3116855: Deep reinforcement learning for production scheduling.
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 HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624