DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication of August 13, 2025, Applicant, on November 13, 2025, amended claims 1, 6, & 9-11 and added claims 13 & 14. Claims 1-14 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections and claim interpretations set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments to claims are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections are maintained below.
Applicant's amendments to claims render moot the prior art rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, new grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment are set forth below.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention at least achieves a practical application (Step 2A-2) and provides an additional element significantly more than an abstract idea (Step 2B) because a technical problem addressed by the claimed invention is when the delayed state is detected by the simulation processing to monitor the progress status in real time, immediately applying the measure in the worksite 4 for improving or avoiding the delayed state may cause difficulties, or an excessive load involved with implementation of the measure, not only a load on the manager 3, but also a load on the worksite server 9 and/or the facilities 5 in operations to reflect the measure, to solve the technical problem explained above, the claimed invention calculates the application deadline of the measure based on a prediction result from the simulation processing for a case applying the measure for improving the delayed state, the claim requires a controller to perform simulation processing that generates predicted progress results and calculate an application deadline and an output circuit to output presentation information including the calculated application deadline, the claimed combination imposes meaningful, non-conventional limits: the calculation is triggered only upon detection of a delayed state, uses simulation outputs for the measure-applied case tied to the stored plan data and acquired implementation data, and culminates in device-level output that is expressly configured for the manager's operational decision-making, and these concrete constraints on when the calculation occurs, what data is processed, and how the result is used reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer-implemented simulation workflow for progress management, not a generic instruction to "apply a rule on a computer." Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pursuant to 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, in order to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, under Step 2A, we first (1) determine whether the claims recite limitations, individually or in combination, that fall within the enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes), and (2) determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55. Next, if a claim (1) recites an abstract idea and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, in order to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept,” under Step 2B, we then determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and in combination, are significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
As noted above, pursuant to prong 2 of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and under Step 2B, we determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and in combination, are significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-56. However, aside from the generic computer components implementing the abstract idea, such as ”controller” and “output circuit,” the limitations referred to by Applicant, which Applicant asserts solves the alleged problem, simulation processing to simulate a predicted progress status, monitor the progress status in real time to detect a delayed state, and in a case where the delayed state is detected, calculate an application deadline where a measure for improving the detected delayed state is applied to avoid the delayed state, and output the calculated application deadline are not additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, rather, these elements are part of and directed to the recited abstract idea for the reasons detailed below because they can be performed mentally by observing information, evaluating the information, and presenting the results of the analysis manually and/or with a pen and paper and manage business activities and fundamental economic practices of a production business, and thus, aside from the generic computer components referred to by Applicant, the claim limitations solving the alleged problem referred to by Applicant recite a mental process and a certain method of organizing human activity.
With respect to Applicant’s assertion that the technical problem when the delayed state is detected and a measure is implemented is an excessive load on a server involved with calculating and implementing of a measure to avoid production delays and the concrete constraints on when the calculation occurs, what data is processed, and how the result is used reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer-implemented simulation workflow for progress management, simply implementing an abstract idea with generic computer components does make the claims addressing a technical problem nor otherwise directed to an improvement in computers or other technology. The MPEP makes clear “an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” and that “[m]ere automation of manual processes” is not an improvement in computer technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The limitations referred to by Applicant recite a mental process and certain method of organizing human activity despite any load on a server when performing these limitations on a server rather than performing the process mentally.
Moreover, as in the claims at issue in Electric Power Group, the present claims are not focused on a specific improvement in computers or any other technology, but instead on certain independently abstract ideas that simply invokes computers as tools to implement the abstract idea. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., et al., No. 2015-1778, slip op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016); MPEP 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the limitations and the alleged solution are directed to a mental process and certain method of organizing human activity.
In the interest of clarity and considering the claims as a whole in view of USPTO guidelines, with respect to Prong 1 of Step 2A, claim 1, and similarly claims 2-14, recite “managing a progress status in implementing a task planned in advance, … comprising: … store plan data indicating a plan related to the task; … acquire implementation data indicating a status in which the task is under implementation; … control, based on the stored plan data and the acquired implementation data, simulation processing to simulate a predicted progress status in which the task is implemented after the status indicated by the implementation data; and … output information, … monitor the progress status in real time to detect a delayed state in which the predicted progress status is delayed compared with the plan indicated by the plan data, the predicted progress status being simulated in the simulation processing, in a case where the delayed state is detected, calculate an application deadline based on a prediction result from the simulation processing performed for a case where a measure for improving the detected delayed state is applied, the application deadline indicating a time by which the measure will be implemented to avoid the delayed state, and … output presentation information including the calculated application deadline.” Claims 1-14, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of managing a progress status in implementing a task planned by obtaining plan data indicating a plan related to the task, acquiring data indicating a status of the task, simulating predicted progress status of the task based on the status, detecting a delay in the predicted progress status from the plan, calculating an application deadline to implement a measure to avoid the delayed state, and outputting information including the calculated application deadline.
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited managing a progress status in implementing a task planned by obtaining plan data indicating a plan related to the task, acquiring data indicating a status of the task, simulating predicted progress status of the task based on the status, detecting a delay in the predicted progress status from the plan, calculating an application deadline to implement a measure to avoid the delayed state, and outputting information including the calculated application deadline could all be reasonably interpreted as a human making observations of data regarding plan data and status of a task, a human performing evaluations based on the observations and using judgement to predict a progress and detect a delay in the predicted progress, a human performing an evaluation and deciding a deadline to apply to address the delay, and a human outputting the results of the evaluations manually and/or with a pen and paper; therefore, the claims recite a mental processes. In addition, the claims manage the progress of a task for a business in a product production environment, which manages business activities and fundamental economic practices of a production business, and thus, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. Further, with respect to the dependent claims, aside from the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea addressed below under the second prong of Step 2A and 2B, the limitations of dependent claims 2-12, recite similar further abstract limitations to those discussed above that narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims because, aside from the generic computer components and systems performing the claimed functions the limitations of claims recite mental processes that can be practically performed mentally by observing, evaluating, and judging information mentally and/or with a pen and paper. Accordingly, since the claims recite mental processes and a certain method of organizing human activity, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “[a] simulation device,” “a memory configured to store,” “a data acquisition circuit configured to,” “a controller including one or more processors configured to,” “an output circuit,” and “cause the output interface to” in claim 1, “[a] simulation system comprising: the simulation device,” “an information processing device configured to,” and “output from the simulation device” in claim 9, “system,” “the information processing device includes: a communication interface configured to perform data communication with an external device,” “a display configured to display,” “the simulation device,” “a user interface configured to receive,” and “a terminal controller including one or more processors configured to” in claim 10, “by a computer,” “a memory of the computer storing,” “by a controller of the computer,” “by an output interface of the computer,” “the controller …,” and “causes the output interface to” in claim 11, and “tangible non-transitory computer readable medium storing program for causing a controller of a computer to execute the” in claim 12, “via the output circuit, to an information processing device … from the simulation device” in claim 13; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Further, these elements merely generally link the abstract idea to a field of use. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-14 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0019]-[0033] (describing the systems performing the embodiments include a server and terminal including a CPU or MPU, memory, and storage implementing the functions with software, which describes the computing elements implementing the invention at such a high level of generality that the specification does not support these elements to be anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic record keeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. In addition, as noted above, with respect to the receive from a network or networked database and create a database entry, while parts of these limitations are themselves abstract, when analyzed as additional elements beyond the abstract idea, these elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because they also perform data gathering operations, which is insignificant extrasolution activity. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-14 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant argues new claim 13 further confirms integration into a practical application by reciting that the controller transmits an instruction for implementing the measure at or before the calculated application deadline to equipment at the site via an information- processing device. This affirmative control step operationalizes the calculated deadline and thus places the claimed subject matter squarely in the realm of computer-implemented control of physical operations, which satisfies Step 2A-2 and, independently, supplies "significantly more" under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the controller is configured to transmit an instruction for implementing the measure at or before the calculated application deadline in a site where the task is performed, via the output circuit, to an information processing device configured to receive output information from the simulation device.”
The recitation of “transmit an instruction for implementing the measure at or before the calculated application deadline in a site where the task is performed” is part of and directed to the recited abstract idea because a human can output an instruction for implementing the measure manually and/or with a pen and paper and manages business activities and fundamental economic practices of a production business, and thus, these claim elements referred to by Applicant recite similar further abstract limitations to those discussed above that narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims that are further recitations of mental processes and a certain method of organizing human activity.
With respect to the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of referred to by Applicant of “the controller is configured to transmit” and “via the output circuit, to an information processing device configured to receive output information from the simulation device,” individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components, which is not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical applicant nor amount significantly more than an abstract idea. Further, these elements merely generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is also not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical applicant nor amount significantly more than an abstract idea.
Response to Arguments - Prior Art
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but they are now moot in view of new grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims (claim 1, and similarly claims 2-14) recite “managing a progress status in implementing a task planned in advance, … comprising: … store plan data indicating a plan related to the task; … acquire implementation data indicating a status in which the task is under implementation; … control, based on the stored plan data and the acquired implementation data, simulation processing to simulate a predicted progress status in which the task is implemented after the status indicated by the implementation data; and … output information, … monitor the progress status in real time to detect a delayed state in which the predicted progress status is delayed compared with the plan indicated by the plan data, the predicted progress status being simulated in the simulation processing, in a case where the delayed state is detected, calculate an application deadline based on a prediction result from the simulation processing performed for a case where a measure for improving the detected delayed state is applied, the application deadline indicating a time by which the measure will be implemented to avoid the delayed state, and … output presentation information including the calculated application deadline.” Claims 1-14, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of managing a progress status in implementing a task planned by obtaining plan data indicating a plan related to the task, acquiring data indicating a status of the task, simulating predicted progress status of the task based on the status, detecting a delay in the predicted progress status from the plan, calculating an application deadline to implement a measure to avoid the delayed state, and outputting information including the calculated application deadline.
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited managing a progress status in implementing a task planned by obtaining plan data indicating a plan related to the task, acquiring data indicating a status of the task, simulating predicted progress status of the task based on the status, detecting a delay in the predicted progress status from the plan, calculating an application deadline to implement a measure to avoid the delayed state, and outputting information including the calculated application deadline could all be reasonably interpreted as a human making observations of data regarding plan data and status of a task, a human performing evaluations based on the observations and using judgement to predict a progress and detect a delay in the predicted progress, a human performing an evaluation and deciding a deadline to apply to address the delay, and a human outputting the results of the evaluations manually and/or with a pen and paper; therefore, the claims recite a mental processes. In addition, the claims manage the progress of a task for a business in a product production environment, which manages business activities and fundamental economic practices of a production business, and thus, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. Further, with respect to the dependent claims, aside from the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea addressed below under the second prong of Step 2A and 2B, the limitations of dependent claims 2-12, recite similar further abstract limitations to those discussed above that narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims because, aside from the generic computer components and systems performing the claimed functions the limitations of claims recite mental processes that can be practically performed mentally by observing, evaluating, and judging information mentally and/or with a pen and paper. Accordingly, since the claims recite mental processes and a certain method of organizing human activity, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “[a] simulation device,” “a memory configured to store,” “a data acquisition circuit configured to,” “a controller including one or more processors configured to,” “an output circuit,” and “cause the output interface to” in claim 1, “[a] simulation system comprising: the simulation device,” “an information processing device configured to,” and “output from the simulation device” in claim 9, “system,” “the information processing device includes: a communication interface configured to perform data communication with an external device,” “a display configured to display,” “the simulation device,” “a user interface configured to receive,” and “a terminal controller including one or more processors configured to” in claim 10, “by a computer,” “a memory of the computer storing,” “by a controller of the computer,” “by an output interface of the computer,” “the controller …,” and “causes the output interface to” in claim 11, and “tangible non-transitory computer readable medium storing program for causing a controller of a computer to execute the” in claim 12, “via the output circuit, to an information processing device … from the simulation device” in claim 13; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Further, these elements merely generally link the abstract idea to a field of use. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-14 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0019]-[0033] (describing the systems performing the embodiments include a server and terminal including a CPU or MPU, memory, and storage implementing the functions with software), which describes the computing elements implementing the invention at such a high level of generality that the specification does not support these elements to be anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic record keeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. In addition, as noted above, with respect to the receive from a network or networked database and create a database entry, while parts of these limitations are themselves abstract, when analyzed as additional elements beyond the abstract idea, these elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because they also perform data gathering operations, which is insignificant extrasolution activity. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-14 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-14 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 & 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Teranishi (US 20200193337 A1), hereinafter Teranishi, in view of Aher (US 20230102319 A1), hereinafter Aher.
Regarding claim 1, Teranishi discloses a simulation device for managing a progress status in implementing a task planned in advance, the simulation device comprising ([0042]):
a memory configured to store plan data indicating a plan related to the task ([0048], [0050], fig. 4B illustrates a storage format of a manufacturing plan generated by generation apparatus 10 after receiving the order stored in the order DB 9, wherein fig. 4B includes a plan table 420 for managing the plan information and is stored, [0052], an estimated/actual management unit 102 receives and manages the plan information generated by the plan generation apparatus 10, specifically, the order table 410 and the plan table 420 are received and held in the process estimation apparatus 1);
a data acquisition circuit configured to acquire implementation data indicating a status in which the task is under implementation ([0052], a progress information accepting unit 104 receives progress information of work with respect to a plan at a printing site from an external apparatus/system, the estimated/actual management unit 102, or the input device 11 of the process estimation apparatus 1, [0072], [0075], in fig. 9A illustrating processing flow of the calculation method decision unit 106 and the feature generation unit 107, in step S603, the calculation method decision unit 106 acquires the progress from the progress information accepting unit 104 including “progress status” and “progress value,” wherein progress value is a value for expressing the degree of the progress status, e.g., in units of minutes, e.g., when the status of the progress is “delayed” and a progress value of 10 indicates that the previous plan is delayed by 10 minutes and the start time of a process originally scheduled to be performed at the current time is delayed by 10 minutes);
a controller including one or more processors configured to control, based on the stored plan data and the acquired implementation data, simulation processing to simulate a predicted progress status in which the task is implemented after the status indicated by the implementation data ([0082]-[0083], in step S608, the calculation method decision unit 106 simulates a situation for if the work were continued in accordance with the work time periods of the processes planned in the prior plan, and in step S609, the calculation method decision unit 106 determines whether or not the result of performing the simulation in step S608 is that a delayed process would consequently be included in the critical path); and
an output circuit configured to output information ([0125], the process estimation apparatus 1 displays a screen that enables a user to grasp (or is capable of allowing a user to grasp) a prior work plan, an estimation result (actual results for the plan), the virtual plan described above, [0130], fig. 18 illustrates a management screen 200 displayed by the display unit 131 with a worker information display area 201, a display content selection area 202, a prior plan display area 207, an estimation result display area 208, and an envisioned plan display area 209.),
wherein the controller is configured to monitor the progress status in real time to detect a delayed state in which the predicted progress status is delayed compared with the plan indicated by the plan data, the predicted progress status being simulated in the simulation processing ([0075], [0083], in step S603, the calculation method decision unit 106 acquires the progress from the progress information accepting unit 104 including “progress value” expressing the degree of the progress status, e.g., in units of minutes, e.g., when the status of the progress is “delayed,” a progress value of 10 indicates that the previous plan and the start time of the original scheduled process is delayed by 10 minutes, in step S609, the calculation method decision unit 106 determines whether or not the result of performing the simulation in step S608 is that a delayed process would consequently be included in the critical path, and if a delayed process would be included in the critical path, the processing transitions to step S610),
in a case where the delayed state is detected ([0075], [0083], in step S603, the calculation method decision unit 106 acquires the progress from the progress information accepting unit 104 including “progress value” expressing the degree of the progress status, e.g., in units of minutes, e.g., when the status of the progress is “delayed,” a progress value of 10 indicates that the previous plan and the start time of the original scheduled process is delayed by 10 minutes, in step S609, the calculation method decision unit 106 determines whether or not the result of performing the simulation in step S608 is that a delayed process would consequently be included in the critical path), calculate an application deadline based on a prediction result from the simulation processing performed for a case where a measure for improving the detected delayed state is applied, the application deadline … to avoid the delayed state ([0080], the importance/urgency of process is set high when the process is on the critical path for the entire plan and the delivery deadline will not be met if the process is delayed, [0083]-[0084], if a delayed process would be included in the critical path, the processing transitions to step S610, and in step S610, the calculation method decision unit 106 generates a virtual plan for the processes included in the critical path as in fig. 10A, [0093]-[0095], fig. 10A, wherein step S622, the calculation method decision unit 106 calculates an amount of time by which to shorten each process, the total amount of time that must be shortened across all the processes is an amount of time indicated by the progress value acquired from the progress information, in step S623, the calculation method decision unit 106 generates a virtual plan based on the shortened work time period of each process (i.e. new end time of the shortened the work time period for each process is the application deadline to avoid the delayed state)), and
cause the output circuit to output presentation information ([0130], [0132], fig. 18, illustrates a management screen 200 displayed by the display unit 131 with an envisioned plan display area 209 and a rewrite button 251 is placed on the management screen 200, wherein when the check box 205 is checked, information on a virtual plan is displayed, [0135] fig. 20 illustrates the display content of the management screen 200 when the virtual plan display check box 205 is checked for an arbitrary point in time of the estimation result highlighted with the pointer 252 to thereby expand or contract the unit work time period and display the virtual plan that is re-generated virtually in the virtual plan display area 209, e.g., when pointing at a location for 11:00 in the estimation result display area 208, the process estimation unit 114 performs estimation for the process that the worker will perform at 11:00 instructed by the pointer, the virtual plan generated by the calculation method decision unit 106 is displayed in the virtual plan display area 209) including the calculated application deadline ([0084], in step S610, the calculation method decision unit 106 generates a virtual plan for the processes included in the critical path as in fig. 10A, [0095], fig. 10A, wherein in step S623, the calculation method decision unit 106 generates a virtual plan based on the shortened work time period of each process).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Teranishi discloses all of the above, including in a case where the delayed state is detected, calculate an application deadline based on a prediction result from the simulation processing performed for a case where a measure for improving the detected delayed state is applied, the application deadline … to avoid the delayed state (as above), and strongly suggests that the disclosed shortened work period for each process in the calculated virtualized plan indicates a time by which the measure, i.e., the shorted work period, will be implemented to avoid the delay, i.e., exceeding the deadline, Teranishi does not necessarily expressly disclose the remaining elements of the following limitation, which however, is taught by further teachings in Aher.
Aher teaches in a case where the delayed state is detected, calculate an application deadline based on a prediction result from the simulation processing performed for a case where a measure for improving the detected delayed state is applied, the application deadline indicating a time by which the measure will be implemented to avoid the delayed state ([0046]-[0049], fig. 7, if the print job will not be completed within a define period of time, e.g., closing of the print shop 110 or a deadline for delivery of the print job, the “Remark” includes a recommendation “to change Operator 1 to Operator 2” 730, the predefined deadline, e.g., 5:00 PM to finish each of the print jobs is going to be met by jobs id1 and job id2, however, for job id3, the estimate completion of the job is by 6:00 PM, and based on the recommendation is to switch the operator on job id 3 to operator 2 from operator 1, the job can be finished sooner, and in fig. 8, workflow visualization 800, after simulation, the workflow visualization 800 can show by changing operator 1 to operator 2 132, the job can be completed by 3:00 PM (i.e. calculated deadline by which the measure will be implemented) instead of 6:00 PM, which Examiner notes is within the deadline of 5:00 PM (i.e. to avoid the delated state)).
Teranishi and Aher are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of planning and simulating production schedules. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Teranishi the ability for the task tendency information to include the application deadline indicating a time by which the measure will be implemented to avoid the delayed state, as taught by Aher, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of the application deadline indicating a time by which the measure will be implemented to avoid the delayed state, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Teranishi with the aforementioned teachings of Schneider in order to produce the added benefit of improving the success rate, completion time, and overall productivity of a production environment. [0003], [0035]-[0036].
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Aher teaches the simulation device according to claim 1 (as above). Further, Teranishi discloses wherein the task includes a process performed with an operator in a facility, the implementation data indicates a status regarding at least one of the operator or the facility ([0072]-[0073], the processing flow illustrated in FIGS. 9A and 9B starts at the same time as a worker (estimation target) starts work, in step S601, the calculation method decision unit 106 generates a distribution to be applied based on a prior plan generated by the plan generation apparatus 10 when the plan generation apparatus 10 has first generated a plan to be followed by the worker who is the estimation target, or when the plan generation apparatus 1 has re-planned while the worker is working, [0075], in step S603, the calculation method decision unit 106 acquires the progress from the progress information accepting unit 104 when a user of the process estimation apparatus 1 inputs information on work progress with respect to the plan, wherein the progress information is configured by “progress status” and “progress value,” and types of progress status include “as planned,” “delayed,” and “ahead of schedule”), and
the simulation processing calculates a prediction period in which the process is performed, based on the implementation data, to simulate the predicted progress status after the status indicated by the implementation data ([0083]-[0084], in step S609, the calculation method decision unit 106 determines whether or not the result of performing the simulation in step S608 is that a delayed process would consequently be included in the critical path, and if a delayed process would be included in the critical path, the processing transitions to step S610, and in step S610, the calculation method decision unit 106 generates a virtual plan for the processes included in the critical path as in fig. 10A, [0095], fig. 10A, wherein in step S623, the calculation method decision unit 106 generates a virtual plan based on the shortened work time period of each process).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Aher teaches the simulation device according to claim 2 (as above). Further, Teranishi discloses wherein the memory is configured to store task tendency information indicating a tendency in the process performed with the operator in the facility, and
the controller is configured to control the simulation processing to reflect, in the prediction period, the tendency indicated by the task tendency information, referring to the task tendency information stored in the memory ([0128], correction unit 132 provides a function for a user to explicitly correct an estimation result and an envisioned plan after the estimation , and when a user is able find a result that was erroneously estimated, by correcting the result to a correct result, the result can be reused for a purpose such as training data for an estimation model, it is possible to record whether it is envisioned how the worker who is the estimation target will perform work as correct answer data for the envisioned plan to use this when generating an envisioned plan thereafter to improve the accuracy of a result of generating an envisioned plan).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Aher teaches the simulation device according to claim 3 (as above). Further, Teranishi discloses wherein the task tendency information includes a second period indicating the tendency for the process performed with one operator, and
the controller is configured to control the simulation processing to use the second period in calculating the prediction period, referring to the task tendency information ([0128], correction unit 132 provides a function for a user to explicitly correct an estimation result and an envisioned plan after the estimation , and when a user is able find a result that was erroneously estimated, by correcting the result to a correct result, the result can be reused for a purpose such as training data for an estimation model, it is possible to record whether it is envisioned how the worker who is the estimation target will perform work as correct answer data for the envisioned plan to use this when generating an envisioned plan thereafter to improve the accuracy of a result of generating an envisioned plan).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Aher teaches the simulation device according to claim 2 (as above). Further, Teranishi discloses wherein the controller is configured to calculate the number of operators in the facility, based on the implementation data acquired by the data acquisition circuit ([0046], [0052], the table 330 for managing information of workers who work at a printing site stores information for each worker, and a work definition information acquisition unit 103 acquires information, including table 330, on a work definition, and provides this information to other functions in the process estimation apparatus 1, [0053], since the portable information terminals are held by workers working in the printing factory, the position information of the workers is acquired to generate features used in machine learning and deep learning, [0068], for generating an estimation model, the features 602 to 607, data obtained by calculating each feature value from a position where the portable terminal 5 was actually positioned at each time, an orientation in which the portable terminal 5 was actually oriented, and an actual operation log of each machine are used as training data), and
control the simulation processing to calculate the prediction period, based on the calculated number of operators ([0054], the process estimation unit 114 uses the estimator generated by the estimation model generation unit 113 to estimate, with respect to a feature for any time for which correct answer data stored by the feature data storage unit 111 has not been assigned, a work process that was performed at that time and transmits an estimation result to the estimated/actual management unit 102, [0074], in step S602, the calculation method decision unit 106 determines whether the plan generation apparatus 10 has re-generated the plan based on the table 420 from the estimated/actual management unit 102, and then the processing transitions to step S603, [0082], in step S608, the calculation method decision unit 106 simulates a situation for if the work were continued in accordance with the work time periods of the processes planned in the prior plan)
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Aher teaches the simulation device according to claim 2 (as above). Further, Teranishi discloses wherein the measure includes at least one of addition of the operator, addition of the facility, or correction of the plan data ([0084], in step S610, the calculation method decision unit 106 generates a virtual plan for the processes included in the critical path as in fig. 10A, [0095], fig. 10A, wherein in step S623, the calculation method decision unit 106 generates a virtual plan based on the shortened work time period of each process).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Aher teaches the simulation device according to claim 1 (as above). Further, Teranishi discloses wherein the presentation information further includes at least one of a first prediction result or a second prediction result, the first prediction result being from the simulation processing when the measure is applied, the second prediction result being from the simulation processing when the measure is not applied ([0130], [0132], fig. 18, illustrates a management screen 200 displayed by the display unit 131 with an envisioned plan display area 209 and a rewrite button 251 is placed on the management screen 200, wherein when the check box 205 is checked, information on a virtual plan is displayed, the check box 203 is checked, information on a prior plan is displayed. When the check box 204 is checked, information on an estimation result is displayed, [0135] fig. 20 illustrates the display content of the management screen 200 when the virtual plan display check box 205 is checked for an arbitrary point in time of the estimation result highlighted with the pointer 252 to thereby expand or contract the unit work time period and display the virtual plan that is re-generated virtually in the virtual plan display area 209, e.g., when pointing at a location for 11:00 in the estimation result display area 208, the process estimation unit 114 performs estimation for the process that the worker will perform at 11:00 instructed by the pointer, the virtual plan generated by the calculation method decision unit 106 is displayed in the virtual plan display area 209).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Teranishi discloses a simulation system comprising ([0042]):
the simulation device according to claim 1 (taught by the combined teachings of Teranishi and Aher teaches, as above); and
an information processing device configured to receive the presentation information output from the simulation device to present the received presentation information to a user ([0130], [0132], fig. 18, illustrates a management screen 200 displayed by the display unit 131 with an envisioned plan display area 209 and a rewrite button 251 is placed on the management screen 200, wherein when the check box 205 is checked, information on a virtual plan is displayed, the check box 203 is checked, information on a prior plan is displayed. When the check box 204 is checked, information on an estimation result is displayed, [0135] fig. 20 illustrates the display content of the management screen 200 when the virtual plan display check box 205 is checked for an arbitrary point in time of the estimation result highlighted with the pointer 252 to thereby expand or contract the unit work time period and display the virtual plan that is re-generated virtually in the virtual plan display area 209, e.g., when pointing at a location for 11:00 in the estimation result display area 208, the process estimation unit 114 performs estimation for the process that the worker will perform at 11:00 instructed by the pointer, the virtual plan generated by the calculation method decision unit 106 is displayed in the virtual plan display area 209).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Aher teaches the simulation system according to claim 9 (as above), wherein the information processing device includes:
a communication circuit configured to perform data communication with an external device ([0042], the process estimation apparatus 1 includes a communication IF (interface) 16 is connected to the local area network 19, and is for a time of communicating with various apparatuses/machines/DBs/access points/portable terminals 2 to 9 in the factory);
a display configured to display the presentation information received from the simulation device ([0042] the process estimation apparatus 1 includes a CPU 13 that interprets and executes the read program to display a UI (User Interface) or perform various controls or calculates in the apparatus, [0126], the process estimation apparatus 1 according to the present embodiment. In the functional block diagram illustrated in FIG. 17, a display unit 131);
a user interface configured to receive a user operation selecting, based on the presentation information, whether or not to apply the measure; and
a terminal controller including one or more processors configured to perform predetermined control when applying the measure is selected according to the user operation ([0130], [0132], fig. 18, illustrates a management screen 200 displayed by the display unit 131 with an envisioned plan display area 209 and a rewrite button 251 is placed on the management screen 200, wherein when the check box 205 is checked, information on a virtual plan is displayed, the check box 203 is checked, information on a prior plan is displayed. When the check box 204 is checked, information on an estimation result is displayed, [0135] fig. 20 illustrates the display content of the management screen 200 when the virtual plan display check box 205 is checked for an arbitrary point in time of the estimation result highlighted with the pointer 252 to thereby expand or contract the unit work time period and display the virtual plan that is re-generated virtually in the virtual plan display area 209, e.g., when pointing at a location for 11:00 in the estimation result display area 208, the process estimation unit 114 performs estimation for the process that the worker will perform at 11:00 instructed by the pointer, the virtual plan generated by the calculation method decision unit 106 is displayed in the virtual plan display area 209).
Regarding claim 11, this claim is substantially similar to claims 1, and is, therefore, rejected on the same basis as claim 1. While claim 11 is directed toward a method, Teranishi discloses a computer-readable medium, as claimed. [0141].
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Aher teaches a tangible non-transitory computer readable medium storing program for causing a controller of a computer to execute ([0042], [0139]-[0141]) the simulation method according to claim 11 (as above).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Aher teaches the simulation device according to claim 1 (as above). Further, while Teranishi discloses wherein the controller is configured to transmit an instruction for … the measure at or before the calculated application deadline in a site where the task is performed ([0093]-[0095], fig. 10A, wherein step S622, the calculation method decision unit 106 calculates an amount of time by which to shorten each process, the total amount of time that must be shortened across all the processes is an amount of time indicated by the progress value acquired from the progress information, in step S623, the calculation method decision unit 106 generates a virtual plan based on the shortened work time period of each process, [0075], “progress value” expressing the degree of the progress status, e.g., in units of minutes, e.g., when the status of the progress is “delayed,” a progress value of 10 indicates that the previous plan and the start time of the original scheduled process is delayed by 10 minutes), via the output circuit, to an information processing device configured to receive output information from the simulation device ([0130], [0132], fig. 18, illustrates a management screen 200 displayed by the display unit 131 with an envisioned plan display area 209 and a rewrite button 251 is placed on the management screen 200, wherein when the check box 205 is checked, information on a virtual plan is displayed), and strongly suggests that the disclosed shortened work period for each process in the calculated virtualized plan indicates a time by which the measure, i.e., the shorted work period, will be implemented to avoid the delay, i.e., exceeding the deadline, Teranishi does not necessarily expressly disclose the remaining elements of the following limitation, which however, is taught by further teachings in Aher.
Aher teaches wherein the controller is configured to transmit an instruction for implementing the measure at or before the calculated application deadline in a site where the task is performed ([0037], the system can also generate a process workflow visualization for jobs currently being processed with additional detailed information, and if the current job in process is taking longer than expected and/or will not be completed before a deadline, the system as disclosed can indicate to a manager of the shop that a change in resources is necessary to finish the job so that the job can be completed before the corresponding deadline, and the system 100 can provide the manager of the print shop with remarks or suggestions to optimize change in resources so that the one or more jobs currently being processed can be completed in a timely manner, [0047], a recommendation can be made, for example, to the manager 140 of the print shop to change the operator 130 (O1) to operator 134 (O3), and the manager 140 (or user) of the print shop can visualize on a graphical user interface (GUI) that the recommendation is to change the operator from operator 1 130 to operator 2 132, which the manager can execute, [0049], the Job id 3 830 can be completed by 3:00 PM instead of 6:00 PM, wherein the deadline is 5:00 PM (i.e. completing the job by 3 pm implements the measure at the calculated application deadline of 3 pm)), via the output circuit, to an information processing device configured to receive output information from the simulation device ([0006], a server having a memory and a processor, the processor configured to: generate a process workflow visualization for the plurality of print jobs currently being processed, [0055], the process workflow visualization for the plurality of print jobs currently being processed can be displayed on a graphical user interface of a client device, for example, within a print shop, and [0030], [0034], the network performs data transfer with the one or more servers 200, and the one or more client devices 300).
Teranishi and Aher are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of planning and simulating production schedules. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Teranishi the ability for the task tendency information to include the application deadline indicating a time by which the measure will be implemented at or before the deadline, as taught by Aher, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of the application deadline indicating a time by which the measure will be implemented at or before the deadline, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Teranishi with the aforementioned teachings of Schneider in order to produce the added benefit of improving the success rate, completion time, and overall productivity of a production environment. [0003], [0035]-[0036].
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Aher teaches the simulation device according to claim 1 (as above). Further, Teranishi discloses wherein the controller is configured to calculate the application deadline based on prediction results obtained from the simulation processing performed for … candidate application times at which the measure will be applied, the application deadline being calculated as a time among the candidate application times selected based on a comparison with a planned completion time of the task in the plan ([0093]-[0095], fig. 10A, wherein step S622, the calculation method decision unit 106 calculates an amount of time by which to shorten each process, the total amount of time that must be shortened across all the processes is an amount of time indicated by the progress value acquired from the progress information, in step S623, the calculation method decision unit 106 generates a virtual plan based on the shortened work time period of each process, [0075], “progress value” expressing the degree of the progress status, e.g., in units of minutes, e.g., when the status of the progress is “delayed,” a progress value of 10 indicates that the previous plan and the start time of the original scheduled process is delayed by 10 minutes), Teranishi does not necessarily expressly disclose the remaining elements of the following limitation, which however, is taught by further teachings in Aher.
Aher teaches wherein the controller is configured to calculate the application deadline based on prediction results obtained from the simulation processing performed for two or more candidate application times at which the measure will be applied, the application deadline being calculated as a time among the candidate application times selected based on a comparison with a planned completion time of the task in the plan ([0046], if the print job will not be completed within a define period of time, e.g., a deadline (i.e., in comparison with a planned completion time) the Remark ”To resolve resume print, we recommend you to change Operator 1 to Operator 2” can also include a click through which upon clicking on the comment, a table 740 can pop up which includes additional details, for example, relating to each of a plurality of operators 130, 132, 134, Throughput time for each of the plurality of operators 130, 132, 134, which illustrates if the print job is changed from one operator to another operator, [0048]-[0049], with a predefined deadline, e.g., 5:00 PM to finish each of the print jobs (i.e., in comparison with a planned completion time), the estimate completion of the job with operator 1 is by 6:00 PM, and he workflow visualization 800 can show for Job id 3 830 that by changing operator O1 130 to operator O2 132, the Job id 3 830 can be completed by 3:00 PM instead of 6:00 PM (i.e., the predicted estimated completion times and throughput times if the job is completed by each of operator 1, 2, and 3 are two or more candidate application times, and the completion and throughput time of Operator 2 is the selected application deadline time based on a comparison with the planned completion time/predefined deadline)).
Teranishi and Aher are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of planning and simulating production schedules. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Teranishi the ability for the task tendency information to calculate the application deadline, as taught by Aher, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of calculating the application deadline, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Teranishi with the aforementioned teachings of Schneider in order to produce the added benefit of improving the success rate, completion time, and overall productivity of a production environment. [0003], [0035]-[0036].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Teranishi (US 20200193337 A1), hereinafter Teranishi, in view of Aher (US 20230102319 A1), hereinafter Aher, and in further view of Schneider, et al. (US 20230128899 A1), hereinafter Schneider.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Aher teaches the simulation device according to claim 3 (as above). Further, while Teranishi discloses all of the above, including wherein the task tendency information includes a first period indicating the tendency for the operator absent from the facility at a … of the process ([0084], [0088], step S610, the calculation method decision unit 106 generates a virtual plan for the processes included in the critical path as in FIG. 10A, in step S614, the calculation method decision unit 106 determines whether process estimation by the process estimation unit 114 has ended based on whether or not the estimation target is present at the printing site, based on the position information of the portable information terminal 5 held by the worker who is the estimation target, and the process estimation has ended when the worker as the estimation target has left the printing site), and
the controller is configured to control the simulation processing to include the first period in the prediction period, referring to the task tendency information ([0128], correction unit 132 provides a function for a user to explicitly correct an estimation result and an envisioned plan after the estimation , and when a user is able find a result that was erroneously estimated, by correcting the result to a correct result, the result can be reused for a purpose such as training data for an estimation model, it is possible to record whether it is envisioned how the worker who is the estimation target will perform work as correct answer data for the envisioned plan to use this when generating an envisioned plan thereafter to improve the accuracy of a result of generating an envisioned plan), Teranishi does not necessarily expressly disclose the following remaining limitations, which however, are taught by further teachings in Schneider.
Schneider teaches wherein the task tendency information includes a first period indicating the tendency for the operator absent from the facility at a start of the process ([0013], optimization run is usually initiated if a change in the production parameters has occurred, wherein Production parameters include worker situation, [0081]-[0082], a shift operation of workers is simulated, the production lines in the simulation are assigned workers, and a change in the assignment of workers to the production lines takes place at least depending on the material requirements and/or material stocks, each production line is initially fully assigned, which means that the capacity utilization according to the production parameter is a maximum, and if the allocation is greater than the number of available employees, see Production Parameters, the allocation will be reduced accordingly).
Teranishi and Schneider are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of planning and simulating production schedules. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Teranishi the ability for the task tendency information to include a first period indicating the tendency for the operator absent from the facility at a start of the process, as taught by Schneider, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of the task tendency information to including a first period indicating the tendency for the operator absent from the facility at a start of the process, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Teranishi with the aforementioned teachings of Schneider in order to produce the added benefit of reducing in costs through a more efficient planning process and an increase in assembly output. [0009].
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 CHARLES A GUILIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
CHARLES GUILIANO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623