DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final, First Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed May 13, 2024. Claims 1–12 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–2, 4–5, 7–8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 7 recite “obtaining a plurality of work orders every a predetermined time interval”. Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite “obtaining a plurality of work orders every [[a]] predetermined time interval” in order to address the inadvertent typographical error.
Claims 1 and 7 further recite “determining order statuses and corresponding candidate status time”. Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite “determining order statuses and corresponding candidate status times” in order to address the inadvertent typographical error.
Claims 2 and 8 recite “determining all candidate status time corresponding to the order status being in progress” and “determining all candidate status time corresponding to the order status being completed”. Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite “determining all candidate status times corresponding to the order status being in progress” and “determining all candidate status times corresponding to the order status being completed” in order to address the inadvertent typographical error.
Claims 4 and 10 recite “a topic idle percentage index” and “the idle percentage index”. Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite “creating a topic production management diagram of the production management visual chart according to the topic idle percentage index” in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 5 recites “For each topic, calculating the percentile”. Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “[[For]] for each topic, calculating the percentile” in order to address the inadvertent typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
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.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a work order processing device” and “a storage device” in claim 7. In view of paragraph 35, the “storage device” is interpreted as reciting a conventional memory.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 7 recite “the processes” in the element for “obtaining a plurality of work orders”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “modifies order statuses of the plurality of work orders according to execution statuses of [[the]] processes of the plurality of work orders”.
Claims 1 and 7 further recite the term “order statuses” in the element for “determining order statuses and corresponding candidate status time”. However, claims 1 and 7 previously recite “order statuses” in the element reciting “modifying order statuses”. As a result, the scope of the claims is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce second, different “order statuses”.
For purposes of examination, and in view of the objection raised above, the claims are interpreted as reciting “determining the order statuses and corresponding candidate status times”.
Claim 1 further recites “the step” in the element reciting “determining order statuses and corresponding candidate status time”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “wherein determining the order statuses and the corresponding candidate status times comprises”.
Finally, as noted above, the limitation reciting “a work order processing device” in claim 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. More particularly, the claims and Specification distinguish between the disclosed processing circuit and the processing device, and the Specification does not disclose any structure defining the recited processing device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For purposes of examination, the recited “work order processing device” is interpreted as reciting a processor.
In view of the above, claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–6 and 8–12, which depend from claims 1 and 7, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–6 and 8–12 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 8 recite “the earliest candidate status time” and “the latest candidate status time” in the element for “retaining”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “retaining [[the]] an earliest candidate status time and [[the]] a latest candidate status time corresponding to the order status being in progress of the work order”.
Claim 2 further recites “the step” in line 5. However, claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, previously recites “the step”. As a result, the scope of claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claim 2 to reference the recitation of claim 1 or intends to introduce a second, different “step”.
For purposes of examination, claim 2 is interpreted as reciting “wherein performing the data cleaning process comprises”.
Claims 3 and 9 recite “information corresponding to the order status being completed” in the elements reciting “determining whether there is information corresponding to the order status being completed”, “when determining that there is no information”, and “determining that there is information corresponding to the order status being completed”. As a result, the scope of the claims is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitations to reference the same “information” or intends to introduce distinct “information” elements.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “when determining that the information corresponding to the order status being completed is not in the work order change table” and “when determining that the information corresponding to the order status being completed is in the work order change table”.
Claims 3 and 9 further recite “finishing time” in the element reciting “when determining that there is information corresponding to the order status … determining the candidate status time as finishing time of the process”. However, claims 3 and 9 previously recite “for each work order, determining whether there is information … and determining the latest candidate status time as finishing time”. As a result, the scope of the claims is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce a second, different “finishing time”.
For purposes of examination, and in view of the interpretation above, the claims are interpreted as reciting “when determining that there is the information corresponding to the order status … determining the candidate status time as the finishing time of the process”.
Claims 4 and 10 recite “the number of elapsed days”, “the status information”, and “the last process” in the element for “creating”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “creating a topic production management diagram of the production management visual chart according to the topic idle percentage index, [[the]] a number of elapsed days, the starting time, the finishing time and [[the]] status information of [[the]] a last process of each topic”.
Claims 5 and 11 recite “the percentile of the topic idle percentage index” and “the topic idle percentage indexes of all topics” in the element for “calculating”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “calculating [[the]] a percentile of the topic idle percentage index of the topic among [[the]] topic idle percentage indexes of all topics”.
Claims 5 and 11 further recite “status information” in the element reciting “creating”. However, claims 4 and 10, from which claims 5 and 11 depend, previously recite “status information”. As a result, the scope of the claims is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claims 5 and 11 to reference the recitation of claims 4 and 10 or intends to introduce a second, different “status information”.
For purposes of examination, claims 5 and 11 are interpreted as reciting “creating the topic production management diagram of the topic production management chart according to the topic idle relative index, the number of elapsed days, the starting time, the finishing time and the status information of the last process of each topic”.
Claims 6 and 12 recite “the topic” in the element for “accessing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “accessing processing time of all processes of [[the]] a topic”.
Claim 6 further recites “a process reference table” in line 4. However, claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, previously recites “a process reference table” in the element for “creating”. As a result, the scope of claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claim 6 to reference the recitation of claim 1 or intends to introduce a second, different “process reference table”.
For purposes of examination, claim 6 is interpreted as reciting “wherein the step of creating the production management visual chart according to the work order change table, the process duration table and [[a]] the process reference table comprises”.
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–12 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “obtaining a plurality of work orders every a predetermined time interval, each work order corresponding to a process, and each work order comprising information of an order status of the work order, wherein the plurality of work orders is generated by work order processing, and the work order processing modifies order statuses of the plurality of work orders according to execution statuses of the processes of the plurality of work orders”; “determining order statuses and corresponding candidate status time of the plurality of work orders when obtaining the plurality of work orders each time, so as to generate a work order change table, wherein the step comprises, for each work order, verifying the order status of the work order, determining current time as candidate status time corresponding to the order status of the work order and recording the candidate status time corresponding to the order status of the work order into the work order change table when obtaining the work order each time”; “determining processing time of the processes corresponding to the plurality of work orders according to the work order change table to generate a process duration table”; and “creating a production management visual chart according to the work order change table, the process duration table and a process reference table.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for monitoring and visualizing work order completion status. Further, the identified elements recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 7 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 7 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–6 and 8–12 further describe the process for monitoring and visualizing work order completion status and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–6 and 8–12 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 an additional element that does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional element includes a work order processing device. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 7 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 7 further includes a storage device and a processing circuit, the additional elements, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 7 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–6 and 8–12 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–6 and 8–12 depend. As a result, claims 2–6 and 8–12 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
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 an additional element that does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional element includes a work order processing device. The additional element does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 7 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 7 further includes a storage device and a processing circuit, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components 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, claim 7 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–6 and 8–12 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–6 and 8–12 depend. As a result, claims 2–6 and 8–12 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–3 and 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (U.S. 2021/0233186) in view of Davis et al. (U.S. 2016/0071033).
Claims 1 and 7: Cohen discloses a production management analysis method, comprising:
obtaining a plurality of work orders every a predetermined time interval, each work order corresponding to a process (See paragraph 59, in view of paragraph 10, wherein object tasks are allocated each work period, and wherein object tasks correspond to processes of a construction site project), and each work order comprising information of an order status of the work order, wherein the plurality of work orders is generated by a work order processing device, and the work order processing device modifies order statuses of the plurality of work orders according to execution statuses of the processes of the plurality of work orders (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 97–99, wherein tasks are associated with a status, and wherein status modifications are updated in response to execution records; see also paragraph 39, in view of FIG. 1, wherein event data is disclosed);
determining order statuses and corresponding candidate status time of the plurality of work orders when obtaining the plurality of work orders each time, so as to generate a work order change record, wherein the step comprises, for each work order, verifying the order status of the work order, determining current time as candidate status time corresponding to the order status of the work order and recording the candidate status time corresponding to the order status of the work order into the work order change record when obtaining the work order each time (See paragraphs 98–99, in view of paragraph 61, wherein task records continuously update associated performance times as task events are generated, and wherein records are updated based on confidence scores verifying task associations);
determining processing time of the processes corresponding to the plurality of work orders according to the work order change record to generate a process duration record (See paragraphs 98–99 and 101, wherein task durations are determined from the event data); and
creating a production management visual chart according to the work order change record, the process duration record and a process reference record (See FIG. 4 and paragraph 14, in view of paragraphs 97–101, wherein temporal task visualizations are generated based on task performance records). Although Cohen discloses storing status, duration, and process data records (See citations above), Cohen does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Davis discloses a work order change table (See paragraph 103, wherein a worker order change table is disclosed; see also paragraphs 103, 110, and 150, wherein the system generates/utilizes various data tables).
Cohen discloses a system for monitoring progress of construction project tasks. Davis discloses a system directed to monitoring delivery task progress. Each reference discloses a system directed to monitoring and managing task progress. The technique of utilizing data tables is applicable to the system of Cohen as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to monitoring and managing task progress.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Davis would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Davis to the teachings of Cohen would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate task progress monitoring and management into similar systems. Further, applying data tables to Cohen would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
With respect to claim 7, Cohen further discloses a storage device for storing the plurality of work orders (See paragraphs 26 and 144) and a processing circuit coupled to the storage device (See paragraph 144).
Claims 2 and 8: Cohen discloses the production management analysis method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing a data process on the work order change record based on the order statuses of the plurality of work orders, wherein the step comprises for each work order, determining all candidate status time corresponding to the order status being in progress of the work order from the work order change record and retaining the earliest candidate status time and the latest candidate status time corresponding to the order status being in progress of the work order in the work order change record, and for each work order, determining all candidate status time corresponding to the order status being completed of the work order from the work order change table and retaining the earliest candidate status time corresponding to the order status being completed of the work order in the work order change record (See paragraph 98, wherein when a new task is identified as “active”, the first event associated with the new task is determined as the starting time for the task, and paragraphs 98–99, wherein times of lift events associated with a given task are used to derive progress of a task based on evaluating the identified start time and end times that are updated according to newly generated events; see also paragraphs 98–99 and 101, wherein net and gross durations of a task are determined from each associated lift event for a given task, such that a finishing time of the task is continuously updated as task events are generated and each event finish time is retained). Cohen does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Davis discloses a worker order change table (See paragraph 103, as above) and performing a data cleaning process (See paragraph 110, wherein earliest data is retained, and wherein subsequent, duplicate data records are removed).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Davis would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 3 and 9: Cohen discloses the production management analysis method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining the processing time of the processes corresponding to the plurality of work orders according to the work order change table to generate the process duration table comprises:
for each work order, determining the earliest candidate status time corresponding to the order status being in progress of the work order from the work order change table and determining the earliest candidate status time as starting time of the process corresponding to the work order (See paragraph 98, wherein when a new task is identified as “active”, the first event associated with the new task is determined as the starting time for the task);
for each work order, determining whether there is information corresponding to the order status being completed of the work order in the work order change table, and when determining that there is no information corresponding to the order status being completed in the work order change table, determining the latest candidate status time corresponding to the order status being in progress of the work order from the work order change table and determining the latest candidate status time as finishing time of the process corresponding to the work order (See paragraphs 98–99, wherein times of lift events associated with a given task are used to derive progress of a task based on evaluating the identified start time and end times that are updated according to newly generated events; see also paragraphs 98–99 and 101, wherein net and gross durations of a task are determined from each associated lift event for a given task, such that a finishing time of the task is continuously updated as task events are generated);
when determining that there is information corresponding to the order status being completed in the work order change record, determining the candidate status time corresponding to the order status being completed of the work order from the work order change record and determining the candidate status time as finishing time of the process corresponding to the work order (See paragraphs 98–99, wherein an end time is stored upon completion of an overall task); and
calculating a time length from the starting time of the process to the finishing time of the process corresponding to the work order to obtain the processing time of the process, and recording the starting time, the finishing time and the processing time of the process into the process duration record (See paragraphs 98–99 and 101, wherein net and gross durations of a task are determined and implicitly stored). Cohen does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Davis discloses a table (See paragraph 103, wherein a worker order change table is disclosed; see also paragraphs 103, 110, and 150, wherein the system generates/utilizes various data tables for visualization).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Davis would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 4, 6, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (U.S. 2021/0233186) in view of Davis et al. (U.S. 2016/0071033), and in further view of Knowles (U.S. 2011/0178830).
Claims 4 and 10: As indicated above, Cohen and Davis disclose the elements of claim 1.
Cohen further discloses the production management analysis method of claim 1, wherein the step of creating the production management visual chart according to the work order change record, the process duration record and the process reference record comprises:
obtaining the process reference record, determining all processes of each topic according to the process reference record, accessing time information of all processes of the topic in the process duration record, and calculating a topic idle index of the topic according to the time information of all processes of the topic (See FIG. 4, in view of paragraphs 28 and 39, wherein task processing times are obtained in association with a given process step and with respect to material type, including formwork and rebar material types; see also FIG. 4, in view of paragraphs 39 and 98–101, wherein both motionless times and net and gross task durations are generated based on task performance records with respect to identified material types); and
creating a topic production management diagram of the production management visual chart according to the idle index, the number of elapsed days, the starting time, the finishing time and the status information of the last process of each topic, and visualizing the topic production management diagram (See FIG. 4, wherein a production diagram is visualized, and wherein the diagram includes a timeline indicating the relevant portion of the elapsed day, starting times, ending times, and state transitions between tasks associated with different material types). Although Cohen discloses calculating both total operating times and motionless times (See citations above), Davis does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Davis discloses a work order change table (See paragraph 103, wherein a worker order change table is disclosed; see also paragraphs 103, 110, and 150, wherein the system generates/utilizes various data tables for visualization).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Davis would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Cohen and Davis do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Knowles discloses calculating a topic idle percentage index of the topic according to the information of all processes of the topic (See paragraph 92, wherein the system calculates a percentage index for a category of delay related steps).
As indicated above, Cohen discloses a system for monitoring progress of construction project tasks, and Davis discloses a system directed to monitoring delivery task progress. Knowles discloses a system directed to monitoring business process progress and status. Each reference discloses a system directed to monitoring and managing operational progress. The technique of calculating an idle percentage is applicable to the systems of Cohen and Davis as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to monitoring and managing operational progress.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Knowles would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Knowles to the teachings of Cohen and Davis would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate operational progress monitoring and management into similar systems. Further, applying an idle percentage to Cohen and Davis would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Claims 6 and 12: Cohen discloses the production management analysis method of claim 1, wherein the step of creating the production management visual chart according to the work order change record, the process duration record and a process reference record comprises:
obtaining the process reference record, determining all processes of each topic according to the process reference table, and accessing processing time of all processes of the topic from the process duration record to create a process time analysis diagram of the production management visual chart, and visualizing the processing time analysis diagram (See FIG. 4, in view of paragraphs 28 and 39, wherein task processing times are visualized with respect to material type, including formwork and rebar material types; see also FIG. 4 and paragraph 14, in view of paragraphs 39 and 97–101, wherein temporal task visualizations are generated based on task performance records with respect to identified material types). Cohen does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Davis discloses a work order change table (See paragraph 103, wherein a worker order change table is disclosed; see also paragraphs 103, 110, and 150, wherein the system generates/utilizes various data tables for visualization).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Davis would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Cohen and Davis do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Knowles discloses functionality to create a process time cost analysis diagram of the production management visual chart, and visualizing the processing time cost analysis diagram (See FIG. 18 and paragraphs 90–91, wherein total processing time costs are charted based on a production management interface).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Knowles would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 4.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (U.S. 2021/0233186) in view of Davis et al. (U.S. 2016/0071033), and in further view of Knowles (U.S. 2011/0178830) and MANALO et al. (U.S. 2023/0259839).
Claims 5 and 11: As indicated above, Cohen, Davis, and Knowles disclose the elements of claim 1.
Cohen further discloses the production management analysis method of claim 4, further comprising: creating the topic production management diagram of the topic production management chart according to the topic idle data, the number of elapsed days, the starting time, the finishing time and status information of the last process of each topic, and visualizing the topic production management diagram (See FIG. 4, in view of paragraphs 39 and 98–101, wherein a production diagram is visualized according to material type and calculated execution and idle times, and wherein the diagram includes a timeline indicating the relevant portion of the elapsed day, starting times, ending times, and state transitions between tasks associated with different material types). Although Cohen discloses calculating both total operating times and motionless times (See citations above) and Knowles discloses calculating an idle percentage index (See citations above), Cohen, Davis, and Knowles do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Manalo discloses for each topic, calculating the percentile of the topic percentage index of the topic among the topic percentage indexes of all topics to obtain a topic relative index of the topic (See paragraph 136, wherein the system calculates quartiles for event times of a given type);
and creating the topic production management diagram of the topic production management chart according to the topic relative index (See paragraph 136, wherein a visualization UI is generated according to quartiles for event times of a given type).
As indicated above, Cohen discloses a system for monitoring progress of construction project tasks, Davis discloses a system directed to monitoring delivery task progress, and Knowles discloses a system directed to monitoring business process progress and status. Manalo discloses a system directed to managing workflow process progression. Each reference discloses a system directed to monitoring and managing operational progress. The technique of utilizing percentiles is applicable to the systems of Cohen, Davis, and Knowles as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to monitoring and managing operational progress.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Manalo would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Manalo to the teachings of Cohen, Davis, and Knowles would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate operational progress monitoring and management into similar systems. Further, applying percentiles to Cohen, Davis, and Knowles would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
MAILMAN et al. (U.S. 2018/0081345) discloses a system directed to monitoring work order performance progress and status.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623