DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/747576 filed on 06/19/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 06/19/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “A method for…”; the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process. Claim 8 recites “the computer program product”, therefore the claim is a process. Claim 15 recites “A system…” therefore the claim is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitations "generating .. a pool P of C candidate tasks …", “generating … k output scenario …”, “generating … both a modified instance …” and "selecting or receiving a selection …" These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than “a computer program product”, and "computer systems", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, "generating .. a pool P of C candidate tasks …", “generating … k output scenario …”, “generating … both a modified instance …” and "selecting or receiving a selection …" in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper writing the changes down on a sheet of paper and examine the list to identify the relevant ones (rationale).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements "outputting"; this limitation amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); and "performing .. the work process"; this limitation fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “performing” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements "receiving” and “performing" The limitations amount to a data gathering step and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The “by one or more processor”, “computer readable hardware storage devices”, and “one or more memories” in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations ""receiving” and “performing" are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc....
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16 the limitation “setting an array H to Null” and “performing an outer iterative process over outer iterations t from t=1 to t=b” are an additional metal process under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “receiving” and “outputting” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 3, 10, and 17, the limitation “setting”, “performing” and “updating” are an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claim 4, 11 and 18, the limitation “computing”, “generating”, “reorganizing” and “resulting” are an additional metal process under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “receiving” and “returning” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 5, 12and 19, Under prong 2, the “removing” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 6, 13 and 20, the limitation “identifying”, “applying cluster analysis”, and “generating” are an additional metal process under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “receiving” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 7and 14, the limitation “extracting”, “identifying”, “computing”, and “selecting” are an additional metal process under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “receiving” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Prior arts:
US 2022/0187847 to Cella
the task definition system queries a library of robot tasks for candidate robot tasks that satisfy the task objective and interacts with the fleet configuration proxy service to select a robot tasks from the candidate robot tasks based on the at least one fleet objective. In other features, the at least one fleet objective is compatibility with available robot operating units. In other features, the task definition system queries a library of robot tasks for candidate robot tasks that satisfy the task objective and interacts with the fleet intelligence layer to select a robot task from the candidate robot tasks based on a suitability of the candidate robot tasks for achieving the task objective.
US 2022/0197306 to Cella
The workflow simulation system applies the workflow in the job execution simulation environment that includes digital models of the robot operating units assigned to the robot fleet and digital models of the task definitions to produce a simulation result, such that the simulation result is used to iteratively redefine one or more of the set of tasks, the fleet resource configuration data structure, or the workflow until the simulation result satisfies a second fleet objective of the set of fleet objectives corresponding to the job request. A job execution plan generator, in response to the simulation result satisfying the set of fleet objectives, generates a job execution plan based on the set of tasks, the fleet resource configuration data structure, and the workflow.
US 2025/0054078 to Xenos
previous schedule which is adjusted using the updated data in step 1355. Using the updated data to adjust the previous schedule generated for the group of machines in step 1355 may comprise using an algorithm to adjust the previous schedule.
US 2005/0044067 to Jameson
These visit order values do not affect the queue position of job triplets with respect to other symbolic job requests, because incoming job triplets are queued as a group, replacing their original parent symbolic job request. Job triplet visit order values affect only the queue priority of a job triplet within an expanded job triplet group.
US 2016/0162478 to Blassin
The group-specific metadata may be used to segment at least a portion of a global pool of task workers into at least two segments of candidate workers based on a similarity of worker-specific competency metadata with the competency requirements derivable from the task-specific and/or group-specific metadata for performing the tasks in the group. Candidate task execution routes for a group may be configured so that at least one candidate worker from one of the at least two segments of the global pool of workers is included in the routes.
US 2020/0026562 to Bahramshahry
the produce 515 operation of a subsequent round of scheduling (e.g., after the round that selected and planned the now executing tasks at cloud A 505) creates three tasks from group A 502 including two priority 1 tasks and a single priority 2 task. For group B 503 the produce 515 operation creates four tasks including a single priority 1 task, two priority 2 tasks, and a single priority 3 task.
The prior art of record does not disclose and/or fairly suggest at least claimed limitations recited in such manners in independent claim 1 "... generating, by the one or more processors, k output scenarios, wherein each output scenario includes b tasks, each task of the b tasks selected from the pool P, wherein b < C, b is at least 2, and k is at least 2; generating, by the one or more processors, both a modified schedule instance (MSI) for each output scenario and key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with each MSI; outputting, by the one or more processors, the generated MSIs and KPIs; selecting or receiving a selection of, by the one or more processors, one MSI of the generated MSIs; and performing by the one or more processors, the work process in accordance with the selected one MSI, wherein the KPIs associated with the selected one MSI improves the work process” and similarly recited in such manners in other independent claims 8 and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Tuan Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 270 3387 and (571) 270 4387, respectively. The examiner can normally be reached on every Monday-Thursday, and the second Friday of the bi-week from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at (571) 272 4215.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
/TUAN C DAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights