DETAILED ACTION
The following is an initial Office Action upon examination of the above-identified application on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “… a plurality of operational parameters … ” in lines 3-4 and claim 2 recites “… the operational parameters …” in line 2. The claims recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims the same term should be used for the same limitation. Suggested claim language: “the plurality of operational parameters” in claim 2.
Claim 4 includes the grammatical error of “… to update machine learning module …” in lines 2-3. Suggested claim language: “… to update the machine learning module …”.
Claim 11 recites “… a plurality of operational parameters … ” in line 3 and claim 12 recites “… the operational parameters …” in line 2. The claims recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims the same term should be used for the same limitation. Suggested claim language: “the plurality of operational parameters” in claim 12.
Claim 11 recites “… a machine learning module …” in line 9 and claim 14 recites “… a machine learning module …” in line 2. The limitation of “… a machine learning module …” in claim 14 has antecedent support from the limitation of “… a machine learning module …” in claim 11. Suggested claim language: claim 14 should read “… the machine learning module …” in line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the claim recites “a system for scheduling jobs in a manufacturing environment”, therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… process the one or more datasets to determine the plurality of operational parameters” and “… update a scheduling algorithm with the plurality of operational parameters… comprising: … estimate processing time of the jobs scheduled within the manufacturing environment, and forecast a first set of operating conditions of the manufacturing environment based on the plurality of operational parameters and the processing time; … modify the scheduling algorithm using the first set of operating conditions forecasted … , wherein the scheduling algorithm is modified for a first time-interval and a second time interval; and … forecast a second set of operating conditions of the manufacturing environment for the first time-interval and the second time interval, wherein the second set of operating conditions are forecast based on the first set of operating conditions and modified scheduling algorithm”.
The limitation of “… process the one or more datasets to determine the plurality of operational parameters” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0319718 A1: pg. 5, par. [0065]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… update a scheduling algorithm with the plurality of operational parameters… comprising: … estimate processing time of the jobs scheduled within the manufacturing environment …” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0319718 A1: pg. 5, par. [0067], pg. 8, par. [0109], and pg. 9, par. [0115]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… update a scheduling algorithm with the plurality of operational parameters… comprising: … forecast a first set of operating conditions of the manufacturing environment based on the plurality of operational parameters and the processing time” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0319718 A1: pg. 5, par. [0067], pg. 8, par. [0109], and pg. 9, par. [0115]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… update a scheduling algorithm with the plurality of operational parameters… comprising: … modify the scheduling algorithm using the first set of operating conditions forecasted by the first predictor, wherein the scheduling algorithm is modified for a first time-interval and a second time interval (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0319718 A1: pgs. 10-11, par. [0136]-[0138]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… update a scheduling algorithm with the plurality of operational parameters… comprising: … forecast a second set of operating conditions of the manufacturing environment for the first time-interval and the second time interval, wherein the second set of operating conditions are forecast based on the first set of operating conditions and modified scheduling algorithm” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0319718 A1: pg. 9, par. [0110], and pg. 10, par. [0128] and [0130]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a manufacturing environment”; “a plurality of sensors configured to obtain one or more datasets indicating a plurality of operational parameters”; “a processing unit communicably coupled with the plurality of sensors to: receive the one or more datasets …”; and “a machine learning module executed by the processing unit to update a scheduling algorithm with the plurality of operational parameters, the machine learning module comprising: a first predictor …; a formulator …; and a second predictor …”.
The limitation of “a manufacturing environment” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “a processing unit communicably coupled with the plurality of sensors to: …” and “a machine learning module executed by the processing unit to update a scheduling algorithm with the plurality of operational parameters, the machine learning module comprising: a first predictor …; a formulator …; and a second predictor …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “a plurality of sensors configured to obtain one or more datasets indicating a plurality of operational parameters” represents a mere means and action for data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… receive the one or more datasets …” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “a processing unit communicably coupled with the plurality of sensors to: …” and “a machine learning module executed by the processing unit to update a scheduling algorithm with the plurality of operational parameters, the machine learning module comprising: a first predictor …; a formulator …; and a second predictor …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitation of “a manufacturing environment” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “a plurality of sensors configured to obtain one or more datasets indicating a plurality of operational parameters”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than a mere means and action data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… receive the one or more datasets …”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
The limitation “… health and performance of equipment, quality of input material, environmental factors, and quality of output product” in claim 2 further details the limitation of “the operational parameters” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… merge the one or more datasets with data of a historical database”.
The limitation of “… a historical database” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… merge the one or more datasets with data …” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… a historical database” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… merge the one or more datasets with data …”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… update machine learning module based on a deviation generated by processing the plurality of operational parameters from the one or more datasets, the first set of operating conditions and the second set of operating conditions”.
The limitation of “… update machine learning module based on a deviation generated by processing the plurality of operational parameters from the one or more datasets, the first set of operating conditions and the second set of operating conditions” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0319718 A1: pgs. 5-6, par. [0081]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… a feedback module …”.
The limitation of “… a feedback module …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… a feedback module …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional elements individually and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5:
The limitation “… functions on a pre-trained physics-informed neural network models and wherein the second predictor functions on a long short-term memory model” in claim 5 further details the limitation of “the first predictor functions” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 6:
The limitation “… a short-term period for assigned for executing the scheduling algorithm, and a second time-interval is indicative of a long-term period for executing the scheduling algorithm” in claim 6 further details the limitation of “the first time-interval” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 7:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… generate an optimized scheduling workflow for each of the first time-interval and the second time interval based on the second set of operating conditions and the modified scheduling algorithm, and wherein the optimized scheduling workflow is generated by setting constraints and objectives for optimization problems”.
The limitation of “… generate an optimized scheduling workflow for each of the first time-interval and the second time interval based on the second set of operating conditions and the modified scheduling algorithm, and wherein the optimized scheduling workflow is generated by setting constraints and objectives for optimization problems” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0319718 A1: pgs. 10-11, par. [0136]-[0138]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the formulator …”.
The limitation of “… the formulator …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… the formulator …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… simulate the manufacturing environment based on an optimized scheduling workflow”.
The limitation of “… simulate the manufacturing environment based on an optimized scheduling workflow” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0319718 A1: pg. 6, par. [0075]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the formulator …”.
The limitation of “… a simulator …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… a simulator …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… recommend an optimized scheduling workflow for each of the first time-interval and the second time-interval”.
The limitation of “… recommend an optimized scheduling workflow for each of the first time-interval and the second time-interval” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0319718 A1: pg. 6, par. [0074] and pg. 7, par. [0089]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the formulator …”.
The limitation of “… a recommender …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… a recommender …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the first set of operating conditions and the second set of operating conditions: indicate anticipated operational states, processing times and environmental factors of the manufacturing environment; and are derived from the operational parameters associated with the one or more datasets in real time”.
The limitation of “… the first set of operating conditions and the second set of operating conditions: indicate anticipated operational states, processing times and environmental factors of the manufacturing environment; and are derived from the operational parameters associated with the one or more datasets in real time” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0319718 A1: pg. 5, par. [0067], pg. 8, par. [0109], and pg. 9, par. [0110] and [0115], pg. 10, par. [0128] and [0130]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 2 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 3 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 4 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 6 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 6.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 7 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 7.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 8 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 8.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 9 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 9.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 10 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 10.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 represents an equivalent non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to scheduling, simulation, and optimization systems/methods.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0123815 A1 discloses a method, system and logic are described for simulating production within a build to order manufacturing environment.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0096769 A1 discloses a system and method offering optimization and management of manufacturing resources to obtain optimal manufacturing capacities and to avoid manufacturing down-time currently realized through manual operation and control of manufacturing resources.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0179652 A1 discloses simulating a manufacturing environment on a basis of appropriate simulation models, a schedule may be established in which process restrictions, tool availability, and product entity status are automatically taken into consideration.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0184549 A1 discloses a control method for optimizing an operation of a power plant fleet.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0199516 A1 discloses managing changes to a product before, during, and after the product is in production.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0404815 A1 discloses a computer-implemented method of scheduling jobs of a manufacturing or logistics process using a priority function.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights