DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecutorial Standing
2. This communication is in response to the Application filed on 07.22.2024. Claims 1-18 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1-18 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
3. The Applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant' s submission of the Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) are acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority/Filing Date
5. Applicant's claim for priority of the CON of PCT/JP2022/010141 filed on 03.08.2022 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the US Application date of 03.08.2022 into consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-18 are directed to a product database and a manufacturing device database to derive a line candidate that realizes a manufacturing flow.
Independent claim 1 has been identified as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 is directed to a design automation apparatus. The claim recites limitations that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, comprising the steps of:
referring to multiple databases (product, manufacturing device, supplier, delivery destination, and real estate);
analyzing relationships between data (e.g., determining manufacturing device combinations, identifying supplies close to a delivery destination, identifying properties close to both supplier and destination);
selecting candidates (line candidate, supplier candidate, property candidate); and
outputting a set of candidates.
These limitations collectively describe collecting information, analyzing the information, and presenting the results of the analysis, which falls within the category or mental processes (concepts that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper). Additionally, the claim is directed to planning and optimizing a manufacturing and supply chain arrangement, including supplier selection and facility location decisions, which is a fundamental economic practice and method of organizing human activity.
Further, evidence is cited to: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, and buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include: processing circuitry, multiple database (product database, manufacturing device database, supplier database, delivery destination database, and real estate database). These elements are described at a high level of generality and perform generic functions such as storing and retrieving data. Accordingly, these additional elements and components, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality, do not improve the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, and do not provide a particular machine configuration in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a generic environment. Instead, the additional elements and components merely implement the abstract idea in a generic and conventional environment, and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, such as storing and retrieving data. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significant more than the judicial exception. The additional elements: generic “processing circuitry”, and generic “database” for storing and retrieving information are well-understood, routine, and conventional components performing their ordinary functions. The ordered combination of elements: retrieving data from databases, analyzing relations, selecting candidates, and outputting results amounts to nothing more than conventional data processing and analysis, which does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., design automation apparatus, design automation system, and design automation method) without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Furthermore, claims 2-16 define the same that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 17, and 18, are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer functioning in a standard mode of operation or matters that are routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Additionally, claims 2-16 do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korpela, Patent No.: US 11,782,423 in view of Florance, Pub. No.: US 2003/0229592, and further in view of Khasis, Patent No.: US 10,380,534.
As per claim 1, Korpela discloses a design automation apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry [as illustrated in FIG. 7 (e.g., processing circuitry 705), and as shown below]:
PNG
media_image1.png
283
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
to refer to a product database that stores product information including information indicating a manufacturing flow of a product and information indicating a material used in the manufacturing flow [see at least the abstract (e.g., a method includes receiving design specifications of a process system in an industrial environment via a system design application)], and
a manufacturing device database that stores manufacturing device information including information indicating a function of each manufacturing device [as illustrated in FIG. 1 that illustrates industrial environment 100 for automating inventory management based on the design of a process system …. And ¶ bridging columns 3 and 4 (e.g., while shown as individual devices, either or both of process management system 101 and inventory system 108 may be distributed across multiple devices), and as shown below], to derive as a line candidate, a combination of manufacturing devices that realizes one or more tasks included in the manufacturing flow;
PNG
media_image2.png
381
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
to refer to the product database, a supplier database that stores supplier information including information indicating each supplier of a material, and a delivery destination database that stores delivery destination information including information indicating a delivery destination of the product, to derive as a supplier candidate, a supplier that is close to the delivery destination [see at least column 5: lines 7-20 (e.g., In one example, process management system 101 queries inventory system 108 for information about whether any of components 102-106 are in an inventory of industrial environment 100. Inventory system 108 tracks the inventory status of components in industrial environment 100 (e.g., receives inventory information from one or more users, automatically updates inventory information from shipping receipts, or obtains inventory information updates in some other manner). For example, inventory system 108 may store and maintain a database that lists a number of individual components that are available in industrial environment 100 (e.g., that there are 4 components of particular part number in inventory). Inventory system 108 may further track a location of the components in inventory, such as a facility (e.g., factory building) or room in the facility where each component is located. Based on the inventory information provided by inventory system 108)];
Examiner’s note: “design specifications” = manufacturing flow, “components” = manufacturing devices, and “external provider sourcing” = supplier selection.
Korpela discloses all elements per claimed invention as explained above. Korpela, further discloses an inventory system 108 may store and maintain a database that lists a number of individual components that are available in industrial environment 100 (e.g., that there are 4 components of particular part number in inventory). Inventory system 108 may further track a location of the components in inventory, such as a facility (e.g., factory building) or room in the facility where each component is located. Based on the inventory information provided by inventory system 108, process management system 101 may determine which of components 102-106 should be included in the subset [refer to FIG. 1 above]. Korpela does not expressly disclose a real estate database that stores real estate information indicating each property, to derive as a property candidate, a property that is close to the delivery destination and the supplier candidate; and to output information on a candidate set which is a set of the line candidate, the supplier candidate, and the property candidate.
However, Florance discloses a real estate database that stores real estate information indicating each property [see at least the abstract (e.g., system and method for creating a unified commercial real estate data model through collection, distribution and use of information in connection with commercial real estate and for creating a web-based marketplace that facilitates the efficient and secure buying and selling of commercial properties), and illsuatted in FIG. 1 below], to derive as a property candidate [see at least ¶0176 (e.g., storing the characteristics in a commodity database if the commodity is being identified to the data processing system for the first time; and (iii) determining a status of the commodity with respect to being a candidate for purchase, sale, or trade)]; and to output information on a candidate set which is a set of the line candidate, the supplier candidate, and the property candidate [see at least claim 122 (e.g., user equipment sets, each user equipment set including means for inputting or determining a user's geographic location and for transmitting information pertaining to the user's location to a remote computer; a computer, the computer equipped for communication with geographically remote users that are equipped with the equipment sets so as to send data to the equipment sets and receive data from the equipment sets including data pertaining to a user's location; and a database in communication with the computer, the database storing information that includes information identifying the location of a property, whereby, in response to receipt of data pertaining to a user's location, the computer retrieves information pertaining to the user's location and transmits the same to the user's equipment set for display on the display)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Florance in order to provide a system and method for creating a unified commercial real estate data model through collection, distribution and use of information in connection with commercial real estate and for creating a web-based marketplace that facilitates the efficient and secure buying and selling of commercial properties [Florance: abstract].
The combination of Korpela and Florance does not expressly discloses a property that is close to the delivery destination and the supplier candidate. However, Khasis discloses a property that is close to the delivery destination and the supplier candidate [see at least ¶0084 (e.g., system and the method may also provide global asset visibility in real-time, such as, e.g., for vehicles, facilities, personnel, real estates and other machines and structures. By having real-time visibility into the location of each ship, container, airplane, and/or truck in a single environment which may unify, aggregate, analyze, and/or optimize the supply and distribution chain, autonomous vehicles can adjust their behavior based on near instant or dynamic changes. If a ship or plane is arriving 16 hours late, the autonomous asset may minimize dwell time or idle down time by accelerating other work in the operation, while still being back in time to complete its task. In another instance of the autonomous supply and distribution chain network, certain types of vehicles can be engaged in tasks that are highly repetitive, such as, e.g., driving along a predefined path inside a city with the top sellers from an e-commerce retailer. In this situation, if an e-commerce order is received, the vehicle in the vicinity will be so close to the delivery region, that it can temporarily detour, make the autonomous delivery, and then resume the next part of its predetermined route without adverse effect to the route)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Khasis in order to provide techniques for intelligent autonomous supply and distribution chain network [Khasis: ¶0006].
As per claim 2, Korpela discloses wherein the processing circuitry calculates as a logistics center of gravity, a point of center of gravity of the delivery destination and the supplier candidate, and derives as the property candidate, a property that is close to the logistics center of gravity [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Korpela, Florance, and Khasis, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 2 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 2. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 3, Korpela discloses wherein the manufacturing device information includes information indicating a floor area of the manufacturing device, and the processing circuitry calculates a necessary floor area for each line candidate, selects as a smallest line candidate, a line candidate whose necessary floor area is the smallest, and outputs information on a candidate set including the smallest line candidate [see at least column 1: lines 33-40 (e.g., a process system design application may provide a “canvas” representing an area of a facility and allow a designer to easily place, move, remove, etc. various components on that canvas. The application may further provide additional features meant to assist the designer)].
As per claim 4, Korpela discloses wherein the manufacturing device information includes information indicating a floor area of the manufacturing device, and the processing circuitry calculates a necessary floor area for each line candidate, selects as a smallest line candidate, a line candidate whose necessary floor area is the smallest, and outputs information on a candidate set including the smallest line candidate [see at least claim 1 (e.g., a sourcing component configured to obtain, in a design application, design specifications and an indication of a desired output of a process system in an industrial environment and identify one or more source components and one or more dynamic components corresponding to the design specifications; a design component configured to configure parameters of the one or more dynamic components to achieve the desired output of the process system)].
As per claim 5, Korpela discloses wherein the manufacturing device information includes information indicating a carry-in method of an object to the manufacturing device and information indicating a carry-out method of an object from the manufacturing device, and the processing circuitry refers to a carrier device database that stores carrier device information including information indicating a carry-in method of an object to each carrier device and information indicating a carry-out method of the object from each carrier device, selects a carrier device that is necessary between a manufacturing device at the upstream and a manufacturing device at the downstream when the carry-out method of the manufacturing device at the upstream and the carry-in method of the manufacturing device at the downstream are not consistent, and adds the selected carrier device to the line candidate [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Korpela, Florance, and Khasis, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 5 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 5. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 6, Korpela discloses wherein the manufacturing device information includes information indicating a floor area of the manufacturing device, the carrier device information includes information indicating a floor area of the carrier device, and the processing circuitry calculates a floor area necessary for each line candidate, selects as a smallest line candidate, a line candidate whose necessary floor area is the smallest, and outputs information on a candidate set including the smallest line candidate [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Korpela, Florance, and Khasis, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 6 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 6. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 7, Korpela discloses wherein the manufacturing device information includes information indicating a carry-in method of an object to the manufacturing device and information indicating a carry-out method of an object from the manufacturing device, and the processing circuitry refers to a carrier device database that stores carrier device information including information indicating a carry-in method of an object to each carrier device and information indicating a carry-out method of the object from each carrier device, selects a carrier device that is necessary between a manufacturing device at the upstream and a manufacturing device at the downstream when the carry-out method of the manufacturing device at the upstream and the carry-in method of the manufacturing device at the downstream are not consistent, and adds the selected carrier device to the line candidate [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Korpela, Florance, and Khasis, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 7 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 7. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 8, Korpela discloses wherein the manufacturing device information includes information indicating a floor area of the manufacturing device, the carrier device information includes information indicating a floor area of the carrier device, and the processing circuitry calculates a floor area necessary for each line candidate, selects as a smallest line candidate, a line candidate whose necessary floor area is the smallest, and outputs information on a candidate set including the smallest line candidate [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Korpela, Florance, and Khasis, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 8 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 8. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 9-16, Korpela discloses wherein the manufacturing device information is stored in the manufacturing device database from a database published on a network, the supplier information is stored in the supplier database from a database published on a network, and the real estate information is stores in the real estate database from a database published on a network [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Korpela, Florance, and Khasis, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claims 9-16 are hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claims 9-16. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
10. Claim 17, which is parallel to claim 1 in terms of scope,
limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined
above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and
underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claim 1. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claim 1].
11. Claim 18, which is parallel to claim 1 in terms of scope,
limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claim 1. The similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claim 1].
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 forms have been reviewed and considered.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
14. 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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
15. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights