DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 21, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Claims 10-20 are cancelled. Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Preliminarily, it is noted that the previously-pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments. Applicant’s amendments to claim 9 have also obviated the previously-asserted interpretation of “the resource scheduling module” under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) since this term is no longer present in the claim.
On pages 8-9 of Applicant’s response and regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Applicant cites to portions of the Specification that are asserted to provide support for the subject matter in question. While it is clear from the Specification that scheduling is performed based on the resource information and the resource profile, the scheduling limitation in the claims was not the subject of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Instead, the problem is that the Specification lacks guidance as to how the recited first score and the second score are determined. Applicant’s disclosure lacks specific detail as to WHAT each score conveys and HOW each score is specifically determined. This leaves questions regarding if the first score and the second score are calculated values (e.g., based on an equation that take descending order into account) or predefined static values (e.g., based on a pre-established table of values) or something else. Consequently, it is not readily evident that Applicant had full possession of the claimed invention at the time of the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant submits that the operations of claims 1 and 9 cannot be performed in the human mind (pages 10-13 of Applicant’s response). The fact that the resource scheduling method is implemented by a processor in a resource scheduling system of a manufacturing enterprise (claim 1) and that the resource scheduling system is of a manufacturing enterprise (claim 9) merely presents a general link to a field of use (i.e., in a manufacturing environment). Also, a human user can establish profiles based on multimodal data and using a tripartite coordination mechanism (e.g., by evaluating relationships among multimodal data). Applicant further explains, “Moreover, based on the technical solution of amended claim 1, such as “determining production urgency respectively corresponding to the at least two to-be-produced products’, it can be seen from the last section that, it is recognized for those skilled in the art that the production urgency is determined based on the dynamic productive parameters corresponding to the to-be-produced product. Moreover, for the practical production scenarios, these productive parameters are numerous and changeable at any time, which cannot be memorized and processed by the human.” (Page 10 of Applicant’s response) The claims do not recite the word “dynamic” or provide any details regarding what is meant by “dynamic productive parameters.” The claims also do not explicitly define how much data is processed. Even if, arguably, a large volume of data is processed, the processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). For example, the claimed invention does not lay out a specific technical improvement to handle large amounts of data.
Additionally, Applicant states, “For example, the to-be-produced product is determined according to the user profile, and the user profile is established based on the user information in the user information from the multimodal data, and a user information database is timely changed by adding and deposit new choices of the user (see paragraph [0050]). That is, the real-time profiling mechanism is actually applied in the technical solution of amended claim 1.” (Page 11 of Applicant’s response) The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A human user can gather and/or observe information regarding a user profile and take into account new information as it is made available. It is not clear which specific details of the claims Applicant feels speak to a “technical solution” to a technical problem. Currently, as explained in the rejection, the additional elements are generally applied to the judicial exceptions and also provide a general link to technology.
Applicant further argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
344
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Page 12 of Applicant’s response)
Applicant does not point to the specific claim language that achieves a technical solution to a technical problem, particularly as it relates to operations performed by the additional elements. Currently, as explained in the rejection, the additional elements are generally applied to the judicial exceptions and also provide a general link to technology. Scheduling a production order of products is a business problem. It is not inherently a technical problem and Applicant’s claims do not provide any details to the contrary. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite the operations of:
determining a first score corresponding to the production urgency of each to-be-produced product based on descending order of the production urgency of the to-be-produced products;
determining a second score corresponding to the resource information of each to-be-produced product based on descending order of resources required by the to-be-produced products.
Applicant’s original disclosure does not explain how the first score corresponding to the production urgency of each to-be-produced product based on descending order of the production urgency of the to-be-produced products and how the second score corresponding to the resource information of each to-be-produced product based on descending order of resources required by the to-be-produced products are determined. Applicant’s Specification explains:
[0060] S400, determining a first score corresponding to the production urgency of each to-be-produced product based on descending order of the production urgency of the to-be-produced products.
[0061] S500, determining a second score corresponding to the resource information of each to-be-produced product based on the descending order of resources required by respective to-be-produced products.
While each of the first score and the second score is respectively described as being “based on the descending order of [production urgency for the first score/resources required for the second score],” Applicant’s disclosure lacks specific detail as to WHAT each score conveys and HOW each score is specifically determined. This leaves questions regarding if the first score and the second score are calculated values (e.g., based on an equation that take descending order into account) or predefined static values (e.g., based on a pre-established table of values) or something else. Consequently, it is not readily evident that Applicant had full possession of the claimed invention at the time of the earliest effective filing date. Dependent claims 2-8 inherit this rejection from claim 1.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to “a resource scheduling method and system” (Spec: ¶ 2) without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Process (claims 1-8), Apparatus (claim 9)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the independent claims recite:
[Claim 1] a resource scheduling method, the method comprising:
establishing a user profile, a product profile and a resource profile respectively based on multimodal data, wherein the multimodal data comprises at least one of network data, product design data, resource supply data, product manufacturing data, product marketing data or product after-sales data;
determining to-be-produced products based on the user profile, and determining resource information corresponding to the to-be-produced products based on the product profile, wherein the resource information is information on raw materials required to produce the to-be-produced products;
performing resource scheduling from a target resource supplier based on the resource information and the resource profile;
wherein the to-be-produced products comprise at least two to-be-produced products;
and the performing resource scheduling from the target resource supplier based on the resource information and the resource profile comprises:
determining production urgency respectively corresponding to the at least two to-be-produced products;
determining a first score corresponding to the production urgency of each to-be-produced product based on descending order of the production urgency of the to-be-produced products;
determining a second score corresponding to the resource information of each to-be-produced product based on descending order of resources required by the to-be-produced products;
determining scheduling order of each to-be-produced product based on a weight, the first score and the second score respectively corresponding to the production urgency and the resource information of each to-be-produced product;
scheduling, according to the scheduling order, the resources corresponding to the to-be-produced products from a target resource supplier sequentially based on the resource information and the resource profile.
[Claim 9] store multimodal data, wherein the multimodal data comprises at least one of network data, product design data, resource supply data, product manufacturing data, product marketing data or product after-sales data;
establish a user profile, a product profile and a resource profile respectively based on the multimodal data;
determine to-be-produced products based on the user profile and determine resource information corresponding to the to-be-produced products based on the product profile; and perform resource scheduling from a target resource supplier based on the resource information and the resource profile, wherein the resource information is information on raw materials required to produce the to-be-produced products;
wherein the to-be-produced product comprises at least two to-be-produced products;
determine production urgency respectively corresponding to the at least two to-be-produced products;
determine a first score corresponding to the production urgency of each to-be-produced product based on descending order of the production urgency of the to-be-produced products;
determine a second score corresponding to the resource information of each to-be-produced product based on descending order of resources required by the to-be-produced products;
determine scheduling order of each to-be-produced product based on a weight, the first score and the second score respectively corresponding to the production urgency and the resource information of each to-be-produced product;
schedule, according to the scheduling order, the resources corresponding to the to-be-produced products from a target resource supplier sequentially based on the resource information and the resource profile.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1)(III), “[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can gather the recited information, analyze it, perform the recited determinations and assigning operations, perform scheduling, etc. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “a resource scheduling method and system” (Spec: ¶ 2) and evaluates a user profile, product profile, and a resource profile, which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of commercial interactions, marketing activities, and managing personal behavior (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 recites that the user profile is established and obtained based on a user profiling technology, and the product profile and the resource profile are established and obtained through an integrated enterprise modeling technology.
The preamble of claim 1 recites that the resource scheduling method is implemented by a processor in a resource scheduling system of a manufacturing enterprise.
Independent claim 9 recites a resource scheduling system of a manufacturing enterprise, comprising:
a multimodal database, configured to store multimodal data;
a processor;
a communication interface connected with the processor;
a memory connected with the processor and configured to store a computer program;
wherein the processor is configured to read the computer program stored in the memory to be enabled to generally perform the recited operations;
and the processor is further enabled to perform the recited operations of determining production urgency, assigning a first score, assigning a second score, determining scheduling order, and scheduling.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 79-81).
The fact that the resource scheduling method is implemented by a resource scheduling system of a manufacturing enterprise (claim 1) and that the resource scheduling system is of a manufacturing enterprise (claim 9) merely presents a general link to a field of use (i.e., in a manufacturing environment).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the dependent claims recite:
[Claim 2] wherein the establishing the user profile based on the multimodal data comprises:
inputting at least one of the network data, the product design data or the product after-sales data into a dual features attention-over-attention model to obtain user information, wherein the user information comprises basic user information and product requirement information;
establishing the user profile based on the user information.
[Claim 3] wherein the establishing the product profile based on the multimodal data comprises:
performing a semantic analysis on at least one of the network data, the product design data, the resource supply data, the product manufacturing data, the product marketing data or the product after-sales data to determine attribute information of each product, wherein the attribute information comprises at least one of the following: a product function, a product material, product performance or product appearance;
establishing the product profile corresponding to each product based on the attribute information of each product.
[Claim 4] wherein the establishing the resource profile based on the multimodal data comprises:
analyzing at least one of the product design data, the resource supply data or the product manufacturing data to determine resource supply information corresponding to each resource supplier, wherein the resource supply information comprises at least one of the following: resource organization information, resource design information, resource manufacturing information or resource supply capacity information;
establishing the resource profile corresponding to each resource supplier based on the resource supply information of each resource supplier.
[Claim 5] wherein the resource profile comprises resource supply information corresponding to multiple resource suppliers;
before performing resource scheduling from the target resource supplier based on the resource information and the resource profile further comprising:
determining a first resource supplier among respective resource suppliers that provides the resource information based on the resource supply information respectively corresponding to the multiple resource suppliers in the resource profile;
determining the target resource supplier based on the first resource supplier, and performing the resource scheduling from the target resource supplier.
[Claim 6] wherein the first resource supplier comprises at least two first resource suppliers;
the determining the target resource supplier based on the first resource supplier comprises:
determining the first resource supplier with a highest priority between the at least two first resource suppliers as the target resource supplier based on a preset priority level corresponding to the respective resource suppliers.
[Claim 7] wherein the determining the scheduling order of each to-be-produced product based on the weight, the first score and the second score respectively corresponding to the production urgency and the resource information of each to-be-produced product comprises:
determining target scores of the to-be-produced products based on the weight, the first score and the second score respectively corresponding to the production urgency and the resource information of each to-be-produced product;
sorting the to-be-produced products based on descending order of the target scores to determine the scheduling order of the resource corresponding to each to-be-produced product.
[Claim 8] wherein the resource profile comprises resource supply information respectively corresponding to multiple resource suppliers, and the method further comprises:
determining a resource supply volume of each resource supplier based on the resource supply information corresponding to each resource supplier;
if the resource supply volume of the first resource supplier among the multiple resource suppliers is less than a preset value, sending prompt information to the first resource supplier, wherein the prompt information is used to remind the first resource supplier that the resource supply volume is less than the preset value.
The dependent claims present further details directed to the abstract ideas identified in regard to the independent claims (as discussed above).
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1)(III), “[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can gather the recited information, analyze it, perform the recited determinations, perform scheduling, etc. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “a resource scheduling method and system” (Spec: ¶ 2) and evaluates a user profile, product profile, and a resource profile, which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of commercial interactions, marketing activities, and managing personal behavior (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims incorporate the additional elements identified in the independent claim (as discussed above) by nature of their dependency on independent claim 1.
Dependent claim 8 further recites, if the resource supply volume of the first resource supplier among the multiple resource suppliers is less than a preset value, sending prompt information to a terminal device.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 79-81).
The fact that the resource scheduling method is implemented by a resource scheduling system of a manufacturing enterprise (claims 1-8) merely presents a general link to a field of use (i.e., in a manufacturing environment).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed. (Other rejections remain.)
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 1 and 9 are most closely addressed by Lederman et al. (US 2016/0328734) in view of Sakuma et al. (US 2004/0073472) in view of Treichler et al. (US 2007/0050069) in view of Evans et al. (US 2021/0158259), as set forth in the art rejection presented in the non-final Office action dated June 3, 2025. Lederman explains that material may be procured from an outside vendor; however, Lederman does not explicitly refer to raw materials. In the background of Treichler, it is explained that some prior art patents “deal with projecting the need for manufacturing raw materials or components based on projected or actual customer orders” (Treichler: ¶ 5). While the various claimed concepts are generally and cumulatively addressed by the cited prior art, the Examiner does not find that one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to Applicant’s invention) would have found it obvious (in light of the cited prior art references and knowledge generally available to those skilled in the art) to have integrated the specific operations in the manner recited in independent claims 1 and 9. Therefore, claims 1-9 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A