DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication of January 16, 2026, Applicant, on May 15, 2026, amended claims 1 & 11 and added claims 15 & 16. Claims 1-16 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 15, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
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 claims do not recite an abstract idea under Prong 1 of Step 2A since (1) the claims do not recite a metal process because the Subject Matter Eligibility Declaration (SMED) the claimed simulation processing involves: stochastic event occurrence, repeated recalculations using changing implementation data, repeated simulation executions for multiple candidate intervention timings, and real-time monitoring while simultaneously calculating an application deadline before corrective implementation becomes impossible, and the SMED explains that such processing is computationally intensive and cannot realistically be performed mentally or manually with pen and paper, the claimed invention calculates the application deadline during ongoing real-time monitoring of implementation progress, the calculations must be completed sufficiently quickly for corrective measures to actually be implemented before the calculated application deadline expires, the claimed simulation processing involves stochastic computations requiring an enormous amount of calculation, such that even hypothetical manual execution would be practically impossible during real-time monitoring quickly enough for actual operational implementation, and (2) the claims do not recite a certain method of organizing human activity because the claims are directed to a specific technological implementation improving operation of simulation systems themselves, and as explained in the specification and further supported by the SMED, conventional systems merely estimated revised completion times or revised schedules after reassignment of resources. 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.
Under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claim 1, and similarly claims 2-16) 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, the simulation processing being performed by a simulation model involving stochastic computing; 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 in the simulation model varying an application time of the measure, the application time being a time at which the measure is applied by the simulation processing, the application deadline indicating the application time by which the measure must be implemented to avoid the delayed state, and … output presentation information including the calculated application deadline.” Claims 1-16, 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 using stochastic computing, 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.
With respect to (1) Applicant’s assertions that the claims do not recite a metal process and the SMED supporting declarations, a claim recites mental processes when the claim recites concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), wherein if the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the claim being practically performed in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is in the mental process category. 84 Fed. Reg. 52 n.14. Here, as a whole, in view of the claim limitations, including the limitations noted by the SMED, 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 using stochastic computing, 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.
Despite Applicant’s and the SMED’s assertions, nothing in the claim prevents the aforementioned claims from being performed mentally. As noted, a human can achieve the aforementioned claim limitations and the limitations noted by the SMED by 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. Merely, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(f). That is, the claimed mental process does not become patent eligible simply because Applicant and the SMED asserts the process is computationally intensive or can be performed more quickly using a computer. Regardless of the alleged computational intensiveness and how quickly the claimed invention can be performed, nothing about the aforementioned observations, evaluations, and judgments, including calculating the application deadline is beyond human cognitive capabilities, and any improved speed or efficiency in performing these operations with a computer rather than mentally is nothing more than the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer, which does not transform an abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.
Accordingly, despite Applicant’s and the SMED assertions, the claims, including the limitations referred to by Applicant and in the SMED, recite a mental process.
With respect to (2) Applicant’s assertions that the claims do not recite a certain method of organizing human activity and the SMED supporting declarations, a claim recites certain methods of organizing human activity when the claim recites fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Here, each of the aforementioned limitations manage the progress of tasks for a business in a product production environment by simulating the tasks, which manages business activities and fundamental economic practices of a production business.
As noted in the MPEP, "an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." MPEP 2106.05(a). Further, mere automation of a manual process or a business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or other technology, and the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. MPEP 2106.05(a).
The computationally intensiveness of the process or that is can be performed more quickly with a computer does not make the claims an improvement to computer technology nor otherwise make the claims patent-eligible since “[a]ccelerating a process of analyzing … data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer” is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (MPEP 2106.05(a)) and “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" in not an improvement to computer technology nor otherwise integrate judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 (i.e., observing information, analyzing the information, and outputting the results) 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).
Therefore, despite Applicant’s and the SMED assertions, the claims, including the limitations referred to by Applicant and in the SMED, recite a certain method of organizing human activity.
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.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because specific technological implementation involving: real-time acquisition of implementation data; stochastic simulation processing; repeated discrete event simulation; iterative recalculation while varying candidate intervention timings; dynamic calculation of an application deadline; and transmission/output of operational implementation information, and the claims therefore apply any alleged abstract idea through a particular technological implementation using a specific simulation architecture, claimed invention therefore solves a specific technological problem arising in real-time simulation systems: determining whether and when corrective measures can still realistically be implemented in time during ongoing operation, as explained in Applicant's prior remarks and further supported by the SMED, conventional systems failed to address the problem of completing simulation processing in time to determine whether corrective intervention remained feasible, and the claimed invention improves practical applicability of simulation technology because the simulation results can realistically be used in time for actual operational implementation of corrective measures. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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. 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 of determining whether and when corrective measures can still realistically be implemented in time during ongoing operation, including real-time acquisition of implementation data; stochastic simulation processing; repeated discrete event simulation; iterative recalculation while varying candidate intervention timings; dynamic calculation of an application deadline; and transmission/output of operational implementation information 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 above 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.
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 claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. Id. The limitations referred to by Applicant recite a mental process and certain method of organizing human activity despite any improved speed when performing these limitations on a computer 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 recite 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, under prong 2 of Step 2A, 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 2-10 & 12-16 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.
Applicant argues the mended claims additionally recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea under Step 2B because the claims recite a non-conventional ordered combination including: stochastic simulation processing; discrete event simulation using stochastic event occurrence; repeated simulation execution for multiple candidate application times; real-time monitoring of dynamically changing implementation status; and dynamic calculation of a latest feasible intervention timing, claims 15 and 16 further confirm that the claimed invention is rooted in specialized simulation technology rather than human evaluation, the amended claims therefore recite substantially more than merely using generic computer components to perform scheduling or evaluative functions, instead, the claims recite a particular simulation architecture involving stochastic simulation execution, repeated recalculation using dynamically changing implementation data, and dynamic determination of intervention feasibility during ongoing operation, the SMED confirms that these operations are fundamentally computational and technological in nature and improve the practical applicability and operational effectiveness of real-time simulation processing, and the present claims therefore are directed to specific improvements in computer-implemented simulation processing and recite significantly more than merely collecting, analyzing, and displaying information. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted above, 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 are fundamentally computational and technological in nature and are directed to specific improvements in computer-implemented simulation processing, including stochastic simulation processing; discrete event simulation using stochastic event occurrence; repeated simulation execution for multiple candidate application times; real-time monitoring of dynamically changing implementation status; and dynamic calculation of a latest feasible intervention timing 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 above 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.
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 claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. Id. The limitations referred to by Applicant recite a mental process and certain method of organizing human activity despite any improved speed when performing these limitations on a computer 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 Applicant alleges amount to significantly more the abstract idea instead recite 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, under Step 2B, 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, 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. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-10 & 12-16 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.
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 1-16 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 2-16) 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, the simulation processing being performed by a simulation model involving stochastic computing; 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 in the simulation model varying an application time of the measure, the application time being a time at which the measure is applied by the simulation processing, the application deadline indicating the application time by which the measure must be implemented to avoid the delayed state, and … output presentation information including the calculated application deadline.” Claims 1-16, 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 using stochastic computing, 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 using stochastic computing, 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 process. In addition, the claims manage the progress of tasks for a business in a product production environment by simulating the tasks, 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 2-10 & 12-16, 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 2-10 & 12-16 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 2-10 & 12-16 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 1-16 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 & 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Teranishi (US 20200193337 A1), hereinafter Teranishi, in view of Kano, et al. (US 20080177526 A1), hereinafter Kano.
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, the simulation processing being performed by a simulation model involving … computing ([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 in the simulation model varying an application time of the measure, the application time being a time at which the measure is … by the simulation processing, the application deadline indicating the application time … 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, wherein the virtual plan may differ from the plan that is generated in advance, [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 time and the 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 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, the simulation processing being performed by a simulation model involving … computing; and
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 in the simulation model varying an application time of the measure, the application time being a time at which the measure is … by the simulation processing, the application deadline indicating the application time … 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 Kano.
Kano teaches the simulation processing being performed by a simulation model involving stochastic computing ([0059], estimated workload for a process is obtained by simulating workload for the process on the assumption that the workload for the process varies according to a probability distribution, [0085]-[0092], a project model based on the assumption that fluctuation in the workload for each process included in the project and an occurrence of rework of the process are probabilistic events created, wherein Monte Carlo simulations of the project based on the simulation model thus created are executed predetermined number of times, e.g., the project model is executed 5000 times, and wherein N denotes the number of simulations, K denotes the number of simulation results having the expected total time that meets the deadline, and Q denotes the probability that the expected total time of the simulation result meets the deadline); and
in a case where the delayed state is detected (Abstract, [0065], [0094], the method for arranging a schedule of a project includes selecting the project simulation results indicating that the project would not be complete by the deadline among all the obtained simulation results, and modifying the schedule of the selected results by modifying/revising the workload per day for each process so that the project would be completed by the deadline), 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 in the simulation model varying an application time of the measure, the application time being a time at which the measure is applied by the simulation processing, the application deadline indicating the application time by which the measure must be implemented to avoid the delayed state ([0106]-[0109], [0111], [0115], [0117], fig. 15, step 1504, when there is one or more end nodes having the completion expected date exceeding the deadline (a "delayed end node"), in step 1506, the path having the highest delay rate is identified by the following formula from one or more start nodes to the one or more delayed end nodes: Delay rate=.SIGMA.(Estimated workloads for All Processes)/(Deadline of Path-Start Date of Path), and in step 1510, the diagram of the path is reconfigured by, when a certain node in the path with the highest delay rate is connected to an output, an input node, or both an input and output not in the path with the highest delay rate: (i) the start date of the certain node is set to the earliest start date, (ii) the deadline is set to the earliest start date of the certain node, or (iii) the certain node is divided into two nodes which are to be used as the start node and the end node, then both the start date of the start node and the deadline of the end node are set to the earliest start date of the certain node based on the assumption that the project is executed according to the appropriate workload per day computed in D-5-4 (Figs. 9-11), [0065], [0095], the appropriate workload is the workload per day to prevent a delay in the path in the simulation result).
Teranishi and Kano 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 to include stochastic computing and calculate an application deadline based on a measure for improving a detected delayed state being applied in the simulation model varying an application time of the measure being a time at which the measure is applied by simulation processing, as taught by Kano, 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 including stochastic computing and calculating an application deadline based on a measure for improving a detected delayed state being applied in the simulation model varying an application time of the measure being a time at which the measure is applied by simulation processing, 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 Kano in order to produce the added benefit of dispersing a change in a working schedule when a delay in project progress is detected to prevent the delay. [0011], [0065], [0095].
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Kano 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 Kano 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 Kano 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 Kano 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 Kano 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 Kano 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 Kano 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 Kano 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 Kano 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 Kano 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 Kano.
Kano teaches implementing the measure at or before the calculated application deadline in a site where the task is performed ([0106]-[0109], [0111], [0115], [0117], fig. 15, step 1504, when there is one or more end nodes having the completion expected date exceeding the deadline (a "delayed end node"), in step 1506, the path having the highest delay rate is identified by the following formula from one or more start nodes to the one or more delayed end nodes: Delay rate=.SIGMA.(Estimated workloads for All Processes)/(Deadline of Path-Start Date of Path), and in step 1510, the diagram of the path is reconfigured by, when a certain node in the path with the highest delay rate is connected to an output, an input node, or both an input and output not in the path with the highest delay rate: (i) the start date of the certain node is set to the earliest start date, (ii) the deadline is set to the earliest start date of the certain node, or (iii) the certain node is divided into two nodes which are to be used as the start node and the end node, then both the start date of the start node and the deadline of the end node are set to the earliest start date of the certain node based on the assumption that the project is executed according to the appropriate workload per day computed in D-5-4 (Figs. 9-11), [0065], [0095], the appropriate workload is the workload per day to prevent a delay in the path in the simulation result).
Teranishi and Kano 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 have modified Teranishi with the aforementioned teachings of Kano in order to produce the added benefit of dispersing a change in a working schedule when a delay in project progress is detected to prevent the delay. [0011], [0065], [0095].
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Kano teaches the simulation device according to claim 1 (as above). Further, while 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 Kano.
Kano 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 ([0078]-[0079], [0081], the simulation executing section 412 receives the simulation results as many as the number of executed simulations, delayed simulation result selecting section 416 selects the simulation results with a delay rate exceeding 100%, and the recommended workload computing section 420 computes the recommended workload per day for each process in the simulation model corresponding to each of the delayed simulation results, [0083], [0086], [0095], [0120], [0122], fig. 15 shows a detail of step 1410 shown in FIG. 14, wherein in fig. 14, step 1404, executes Monte Carlo simulations of the project based on the simulation model a predetermined number of times, e.g., 5000 times, step 1410 computes the appropriate workload per day for each process in each delayed simulation result, step 1412 the delayed simulation results are sorted in ascending order of the delay rate, and then the highest M delayed simulation results are extracted) 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 ([0106]-[0109], [0111], [0115], [0117], fig. 15, step 1504, when there is one or more end nodes having the completion expected date exceeding the deadline (a "delayed end node"), in step 1506, the path having the highest delay rate is identified by the following formula from one or more start nodes to the one or more delayed end nodes: Delay rate=.SIGMA.(Estimated workloads for All Processes)/(Deadline of Path-Start Date of Path), and in step 1510, the diagram of the path is reconfigured by, when a certain node in the path with the highest delay rate is connected to an output, an input node, or both an input and output not in the path with the highest delay rate: (i) the start date of the certain node is set to the earliest start date, (ii) the deadline is set to the earliest start date of the certain node, or (iii) the certain node is divided into two nodes which are to be used as the start node and the end node, then both the start date of the start node and the deadline of the end node are set to the earliest start date of the certain node based on the assumption that the project is executed according to the appropriate workload per day computed in D-5-4 (Figs. 9-11), [0065], [0095], the appropriate workload is the workload per day to prevent a delay in the path in the simulation result).
Teranishi and Kano 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 have modified Teranishi with the aforementioned teachings of Kano in order to produce the added benefit of dispersing a change in a working schedule when a delay in project progress is detected to prevent the delay. [0011], [0065], [0095].
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Kano teaches the simulation device according to claim 14 (as above). Further, while Teranishi discloses wherein the controller is configured to perform discrete event simulation as the simulation processing for each of the … candidate application times ([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 Kano.
Kano teaches wherein the controller is configured to perform discrete event simulation (0055], [0057], the workload of each process varies according to a certain probability distribution, the workload for each process can be simulated by using a combination of a random number generator and a given distribution, [0059], estimated workload for a process is obtained by simulating workload for the process on the assumption that the workload for the process varies according to a probability distribution) as the simulation processing for each of the two or more candidate application times ([0083], [0086], [0095], [0120], [0122], fig. 15 shows a detail of step 1410 shown in FIG. 14, wherein in fig. 14, step 1404, executes Monte Carlo simulations of the project based on the simulation model a predetermined number of times, e.g., 5000 times, step 1410 computes the appropriate workload per day for each process in each delayed simulation result, step 1412 the delayed simulation results are sorted in ascending order of the delay rate, and then the highest M delayed simulation results are extracted), the predicted progress status being changed ([0106]-[0109], [0111], [0115], [0117], fig. 15, step 1504, when there is one or more end nodes having the completion expected date exceeding the deadline (a "delayed end node"), in step 1506, the path having the highest delay rate is identified by the following formula from one or more start nodes to the one or more delayed end nodes: Delay rate=.SIGMA.(Estimated workloads for All Processes)/(Deadline of Path-Start Date of Path), and in step 1510, the diagram of the path is reconfigured by, when a certain node in the path with the highest delay rate is connected to an output, an input node, or both an input and output not in the path with the highest delay rate: (i) the start date of the certain node is set to the earliest start date, (ii) the deadline is set to the earliest start date of the certain node, or (iii) the certain node is divided into two nodes which are to be used as the start node and the end node, then both the start date of the start node and the deadline of the end node are set to the earliest start date of the certain node based on the assumption that the project is executed according to the appropriate workload per day computed in D-5-4 (Figs. 9-11)) by one or more events in the discrete event simulation in which each event stochastically occurs by random numbers ([0055], [0057], the workload of each process varies according to a certain probability distribution, the workload for each process can be simulated by using a combination of a random number generator and a given distribution, [0059], estimated workload for a process is obtained by simulating workload for the process on the assumption that the workload for the process varies according to a probability distribution, [0076], order to support the estimated workload computing section 406 when the computing section 406 computes the estimated workload based on the workload 308 given as the probability distribution and the branching probability 310, the random number generating section 408 may be provided to operate in cooperation with the estimated workload computing section 406).
Teranishi and Kano 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 have modified Teranishi with the aforementioned teachings of Kano in order to produce the added benefit of dispersing a change in a working schedule when a delay in project progress is detected to prevent the delay. [0011], [0065], [0095].
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Kano teaches the simulation device according to claim 1 (as above). Further, while Teranishi discloses wherein the controller is configured to control the simulation processing by the simulation model repeatedly causing an event to … occur in real time ([0067], the process estimation unit 114 is to estimate, in real time, a process being performed by an estimation target, [0082], in 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), the event affecting the predicted progress status, monitor the progress status in real time by the simulation model simulating the predicted progress status in the simulation processing to detect the delayed state ([0067], the process estimation unit 114 is to estimate, in real time, a process being performed by an estimation target, [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), and
in the 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 the application deadline by repeating the simulation processing with the application time of the measure changed in the simulation model ([0067], the process estimation unit 114 is to estimate, in real time, a process being performed by an estimation target, [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, wherein the virtual plan may differ from the plan that is generated in advance, [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 time and the deadline to avoid the delayed state)), Teranishi does not necessarily expressly disclose the remaining elements of the following limitation, which however, is taught by further teachings in Kano.
Kano teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the simulation processing by the simulation model repeatedly ([0083], [0086], [0095], [0120], [0122], fig. 15 shows a detail of step 1410 shown in FIG. 14, wherein in fig. 14, step 1404, executes Monte Carlo simulations of the project based on the simulation model a predetermined number of times, e.g., 5000 times, step 1410 computes the appropriate workload per day for each process in each delayed simulation result, step 1412 the delayed simulation results are sorted in ascending order of the delay rate, and then the highest M delayed simulation results are extracted) causing an event to stochastically occur ([0055], [0057], the workload of each process varies according to a certain probability distribution, the workload for each process can be simulated by using a combination of a random number generator and a given distribution, [0059], estimated workload for a process is obtained by simulating workload for the process on the assumption that the workload for the process varies according to a probability distribution).
Teranishi and Kano 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 have modified Teranishi with the aforementioned teachings of Kano in order to produce the added benefit of dispersing a change in a working schedule when a delay in project progress is detected to prevent the delay. [0011], [0065], [0095].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Teranishi (US 20200193337 A1), hereinafter Teranishi, in view of Kano, et al. (US 20080177526 A1), hereinafter Kano, and in further view of Schneider, et al. (US 20230128899 A1), hereinafter Schneider.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings of Teranishi and Kano 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
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
Prosecution Insights