DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/806,179 filed on 08/15/2024. Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are pending in this application, of which claims 1-4 and 7-9 have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 18/806,179 filed 08/15/2024 is a Continuation of PCT/JP2022/006709, filed 02/18/2022.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed December 26, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1-2, 4, 8, and 9, and cancelled claims 5-6. New claim 10 was presented for examination.
Applicant's amendments to the claims are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
6. Applicant's amendments to claims 1-2, 4, 8, and 9 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103; accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed December 26, 2025, have been fully considered.
8. Applicant submits “Without acquiescing to the validity of the rejections, Applicant has amended the claims in a way that should address the Examiner's concerns. For example, claim 1 includes: (i) outputting a result of the process by displaying the task plan; and (ii) concrete computer processing of calculating a plurality of placeable distances respectively in a first direction, a second direction, a third direction, and a fourth direction for each of the sections after the selected object is placed. Accordingly, amended claim 1 is directed to specific technological processing and is not merely an abstract idea.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/26/2025, pages 7-8]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “amended claim 1 is directed to specific technological processing and is not merely an abstract idea,” it is noted that the additional elements in amended claim 1 are: a display device and the processing device, which merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment) via generic computing hardware, software/instructions, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05. Applicant has provided no facts/evidence, cited any portion of the Specification, nor provided a persuasive line of reasoning showing how the additional elements are integrated with the abstract idea to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
It is also noted that the claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no display device, processing device, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information relating to a task plan, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, in response to Applicant’s argument that “Applicant has amended the claims in a way that should address the Examiner's concerns. For example, claim 1 includes: (i) outputting a result of the process by displaying the task plan; and (ii) concrete computer processing of calculating a plurality of placeable distances respectively in a first direction, a second direction, a third direction, and a fourth direction for each of the sections after the selected object is placed. Accordingly, amended claim 1 is directed to specific technological processing and is not merely an abstract idea,” the Examiner notes that while claim 1 reties “display the task plan” and “calculating a plurality of placeable distances,” these steps merely implement and abstract method organizing tasks on a generic computer. Courts have consistently found that merely displaying information on as screen without more, does not confer patent eligibility. The claimed display is a form of conveying and reporting information, which is not sufficient to establish a concrete technological improvement. Applicant further submits that calculating placeable distance in multiple direction constitutes “concrete computer processing.” While the claim recites steps of calculating distances in four directions, these steps do not meaningfully improve the functioning of the computer itself or provide a technical solution to technical problem. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
9. Applicant submits “Applicant respectfully traverses each rejection, each implicit or explicit reliance on Official Notice, and any rationale for combining the references, and Applicant does not acquiesce in the validity of the rejections.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/26/2025, page 8]
In response to Applicant’s statement, the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s statement is a general assertion traversing each rejection and any reliance on Official Notice. However, the statement does not provide any specific argument addressing the reasons for the rejection, nor does it identify particular limitations or explain how the claims overcome the grounds cited. Moreover, the Office Action does not rely on Official Notice for any portion of the rejection. The amendments are believed to be fully addressed via the updated rejections set forth in the instant Office action.
10. Applicant submits “For at least the reasons discussed above in the section titled "Claim Objections and Allowable Subject Matter," Applicant submits that the claims are allowable over the cited references.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/26/2025, page 8]
In response, it is noted that Applicant's amendments are sufficient to overcome the §103 rejection. Reasons for allowance (over the prior art) are provided below.
11. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are
directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Election by Original Presentation
12. Newly submitted claim 10 is directed towards a second embodiment, different than the embodiment claimed in independent claim 1. However, since the second embodiment is not part of the action given on the original subject matter and the applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, claim 10 cannot be examined. The remaining claims are not readable on the elected invention because the newly added claim 10 represents patentably distinct inventions than that presented by the original claim (claim 1). Newly submitted claim 1 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 1 recites: “A processing device, configured to: refer to a first area corresponding to a work area where a plurality of tasks related to a plurality of articles is performed, the first area including a plurality of sections, the plurality of sections being arranged along a first-axis direction and a second-axis direction, the first-axis direction and the second-axis direction being orthogonal to each other; refer to a plurality of objects corresponding to the plurality of articles, a size and a duration of the task being set for each of the plurality of objects; and generate a task plan by using the plurality of sizes and the plurality of durations, the task plan including placements of the plurality of objects in the first area, and a sequence of the plurality of placements., wherein the generation of the task plan includes selecting one of the plurality of objects, extracting one or more of the sections at which the selected object can be placed, calculating one or more evaluation values when placing the selected object in the one or more sections, wherein the calculating of the one or more evaluation values includes calculating a plurality of placeable distances respectively in a first direction, a second direction, a third direction, and a fourth direction for each of the sections after the selected object is placed, the first direction being parallel to the first-axis direction, the second direction being opposite to the first direction, the third direction being parallel to the second-axis direction, the fourth direction being opposite to the third direction and calculating the one or more evaluation values based on the plurality of placeable distances, and determining the placement of the selected object based on the one or more evaluation values; and cause a display device to display the task plan, wherein the processing device is configured to calculate as the one or more evaluation values based on a state of the first area after placing at least one of the plurality of objects, and determine the plurality of placements and the sequence based on the one or more evaluation values.”
Newly submitted claim 10 recites: “A processing device, configured to: refer to a first area corresponding to a work area where a plurality of tasks related to a plurality of articles is performed, the first area including a plurality of sections arranged along mutually orthogonal first and second axis directions; refer to a plurality of objects corresponding to the articles, a size and a duration of the task being set for each of the objects; generate a plurality of task plans, each of the task plans being generated for a corresponding one of possible sequences by repeatedly performing selecting one of the objects whose duration has not yet been input to a schedule of a task plan for a corresponding sequence, calculating first placeable distances for each of the sections in four directions along the first and second axis directions to an obstacle or a placed object, extracting one or more sections at which the selected object can be placed based on the first placeable distances and the size of each of the objects, calculating second placeable distances using a calculation procedure corresponding to that used for the first placeable distances, when placing the selected object at the one or more sections, calculating one or more evaluation values based on the second placeable distances, determining a placement of the selected object based on the one or more evaluation values, and inputting the duration to the schedule of the task plan; extract one or more task plans from the generated task plans, each of the extracted task plans including the schedule which does not exceed a deadline; and cause a display device to display the one or more task plans.”
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 (Invention I) is directed towards a processing device for generating a single task plan that includes placements if objects in a workspace and a sequence of the placement based on calculated evaluation values, and displaying that task plan. Claim 10 (Invention II) is directed to a processing device for generating multiple task plans corresponding to all possible sequence of object placement, evaluating each, selecting those that meet a deadline, and displaying the resulting plans.
Claim 10 (Invention II) is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct. Nothing in amended claim 1 makes reference to “a plurality of task plans, each of the task plans being generated for a corresponding one of possible sequences,” “extract one or more task plans from the generated task plans, each of the extracted task plans including the schedule which does not exceed a deadline,” and “cause a display device to display the one or more task plans,” as required by Invention II. Similarly, nothing in amended claim 10 makes reference to “a task plan including placements of the plurality of objects in the first area, and a sequence of the plurality of placements” and “cause a display device to display the task plan,” as required by Invention I. In the instant case, invention I has a separate utility such as generating a single plan, whereas invention II has a separate utility such as producing multiple plans subject to scheduling constraints. Invention II differs from Invention I in both scope and function. While claim 1 generates and displays a single tasks plan, claim 10 involves generating a plurality of task plans for multiple possible sequence, performing additional evaluations, and selecting only those plans that meet a deadline. Because the tow claims recite distinct processes and outcomes, they are directed to different inventions.
13. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 10 (directed to non-elected group II) is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
As per MPEP § 821.03, [c]laims added by amendment following action by the examiner, MPEP § 818.01, MPEP § 818.02(a), to an invention other than previously claimed, should be treated as indicated by 37 CFR 1.145. As per 37 CFR 1.145, [i]f, after an office action on an application, the applicant presents claims directed to an invention distinct from and independent of the invention previously claimed, the applicant will be required to restrict the claims to the invention previously claimed if the amendment is entered, subject to reconsideration and review as provided in 37 CFR 1.143 and 1.144.
14. Furthermore, it is noted that claim 10 is directed toward the second embodiment. Since that is not part of the elected group and the applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, claim 10 cannot be examined. Claim 10 is not readable on the elected invention because newly presented claim 10 represents a patentably distinct invention than that presented by amended claim 1.
15. As per MPEP § 819, [t]he general policy of the Office is not to permit the applicant to shift to claiming another invention after an election is once made and action given on the elected subject matter. Note that the applicant cannot, as a matter of right, file a request for continued examination (RCE) to obtain continued examination on the basis of claims that are independent and distinct from the claims previously claimed and examined (i.e., applicant cannot switch inventions by way of an RCE as a matter of right). When claims are presented which the examiner holds are drawn to an invention other than the one elected, he or she should treat the claims as outlined in MPEP § 821.03. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 10 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
16. Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are pending in this application, of which claims 1-4 and 7-9 have been examined on the merits discussed below. Claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
17. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
18. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
19. Claim 2 was amended to recite “The processing device according to claim 1, wherein when the processing device determines that there are no sections at which the object can be placed…” The phrase “the object” lacks antecedent basis and therefore renders the claim indefinite. While claim 1 recites “a plurality of objects” and “a selected object” claims 1 and 2 do not introduce “an object.” Appropriate correction is required.
20. All claims dependent from above rejected claims are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
21. 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.
22. Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
23. Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the processing device (claims 1-4, 7), method (claim 8), and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 9) are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine, process, and article of manufacture). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-4 and 7-9 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into both the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings set forth in MPEP 2106. Specifically, the claims recite limitations falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping by reciting steps for managing interactions between people including by following rules or instructions. Similarly, the claims recite steps falling under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings by reciting steps that can be performed in the human mind (via observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). With respect to claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: refer to a first area corresponding to a work area where a plurality of tasks related to a plurality of articles is performed, the first area including a plurality of sections, the plurality of sections being arranged along a first-axis direction and a second-axis direction, the first-axis direction and the second-axis direction being orthogonal to each other; refer to a plurality of objects corresponding to the plurality of articles, a size and a duration of the task being set for each of the plurality of objects; and generate a task plan by using the plurality of sizes and the plurality of durations, the task plan including placements of the plurality of objects in the first area, and a sequence of the plurality of placements, wherein the generation of the task plan includes selecting one of the plurality of objects, extracting one or more of the sections at which the selected object can be placed, calculating one or more evaluation values when placing the selected object in the one or more sections, wherein the calculating of the one or more evaluation values includes calculating a plurality of placeable distances respectively in a first direction, a second direction, a third direction, and a fourth direction for each of the sections after the selected object is placed, the first direction being parallel to the first-axis direction, the second direction being opposite to the first direction, the third direction being parallel to the second-axis direction, the fourth direction being opposite to the third direction and calculating the one or more evaluation values based on the plurality of placeable distances, and determining the placement of the selected object based on the one or more evaluation values; and cause a display device to display the task plan, wherein the processing device is configured to calculate the one or more evaluation values based on a state of the first area after placing at least one of the plurality of objects, and determine the plurality of placements and the sequence based on the one or more evaluation values. Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea of managing tasks, which falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings set forth in MPEP 2106. Independent claims 8 and 9 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 9 and are therefore found to recite the same abstract idea as claim 1.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings described in MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 9, the additional elements are: a display device and the processing device being configured to (claim 1), a computer and a display device (claim 8), a program and the computer (claim 9). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 9, the additional elements are: a display device and the processing device being configured to (claim 1), a computer and a display device (claim 8), a program and the computer (claim 9). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes that generic computer devices that may be used to implement the invention (Specification at paragraph [0028]: “The processing device 1 is, for example, a general-purpose computer that includes a central processing unit (CPU).”). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7 recite the same abstract ideas as recited in the independent claims by reciting steps/details for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions) and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, dependent claims 2-4 and 7 recite “determines that there are no sections at which the object can be placed, the generation of the task plan includes: determining whether or not at least one of the plurality of objects is placeable by referring to states of the first area at different times; and removing, from the first area, one or more of the objects for which the duration has elapsed from being placed in the first area to extract the sections again,” “wherein the task plan further includes a schedule showing a relationship of the sequence and time,” “display the task plan including the schedule and the plurality of placements in the first area,” “wherein each of the plurality of sections is set to be one of an occupied section or an unoccupied section, and the processing device generates the task plan including the placements of the plurality of objects and the sequence of the plurality of placements for one or more of the unoccupied sections included in the first area,” which are details for managing tasks and that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The other dependent claims have been evaluated as well, but similar to dependent claims 2-4 and 7, recite details/steps that merely refine the same abstract idea recite in the independent claims. Accordingly, these steps are part of the same abstract idea(s) set forth in the independent claims. The additional elements recited in the dependent claims are directed to generic computing elements and instructions/software that serve to tie the abstract to a particular technological environment, similar to simply adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
19. Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are allowable over prior art. With respect to independent claims 1 and 8, the closest prior art, Tate (US 2022/0309753 A1) and Sobalvarro et al. (US 2022/0121181 A1), collectively teach features for refer to a first area corresponding to a work area where a plurality of tasks related to a plurality of articles is performed, the first area including a plurality of sections; refer to a plurality of objects corresponding to the plurality of articles, a size and a duration of the task being set for each of the plurality of objects; and generate a task plan by using the plurality of sizes and the plurality of durations, the task plan including placements of the plurality of objects in the first area, and a sequence of the plurality of placements; calculate an evaluation values based on a state of the first area after placing at least one of the plurality of objects, and determine the plurality of placements and the sequence based on the valuation value [See Office Action mailed 10/09/2025 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted subject matter]
However, with respect to the amended limitations, while Austern et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0073433 A1) describes “As noted above, the generative analysis may be used to identify an equipment placement location. The placement location for a piece of equipment may include a suggested location within the floor plan where the equipment may be positioned. In some embodiments, the placement location may refer to a single point or location within the room. For example, the point or location may represent a center point, a corner point, an edge point, or any other point associated with the piece of equipment. Accordingly, the location may be represented in the form of X and Y coordinates in relation to the floor plan (e.g., an overall coordinate system of the floor plan, a coordinate system for the room being analyzed, or any other form of coordinate system). The location may also include orientation information for the equipment. For example, the location may include a center point or location and a facing direction or other directional information of the equipment (e.g., represented in degrees, compass direction, or other formats). In some embodiments, the location may be represented as a plurality of points or a position of a reference feature. If points are used for location, the points may define the corners of the piece of equipment and thus may also define the orientation. The location may also be represented as a symbol, shape or vector within the floor plan. For example, the location may represent an outline of the equipment, an overall footprint of the equipment, a space required for operation of the equipment, or any other graphical representation of the location. In some embodiments, the location may also include height information (e.g., represented in Z coordinates), which may include the overall height of the equipment, an installation height, or other height information” (paragraph 0158) and “As another example, a floor plan may include dimensions, which may be graphic notations marking distances between elements of the plan. Dimensions may indicate distances between objects or between abstractions such as gridlines. Dimensions may be drawn using a line with accented endpoints and a number signifying the dimension size. Dimensions may be in mm, meter, inches or any other accepted unit” (paragraph 0671) and Hance et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0097898 A1) describes that “The optimal layout can be based on a customizable goal, such as to enhance storage capacity of the warehouse. In instances in which storage capacity is needed, the layout can be modified to use aisles of a narrower width instead of a larger width which may trade off outbound throughput to increase storage capacity. The layout may be optimized for a day or a season of the year, or to optimize for storage capacity or outbound throughput” (paragraph 0063) and that “In addition, the determination of the optimal layout can be performed by access to stored configurations of the warehouse, or from past arrangements of the warehouse. For example, items in the warehouse may be configured in a desired manner, and the specific configuration can be noted and stored in memory, such as by imaging the warehouse to note physical locations and positions of pallets. The configuration can be associated with specific parameters, e.g., storage capacity parameters, outbound throughput parameters, and for a future rearrangement of the warehouse, a user can input parameters into the WMS, which then accesses stored configurations to determine an associated optimal layout based on the parameters input” (paragraph 00073), Austern et al. and Hance et al. do not describe measuring for, each section, the distance space available in each of four cardinal directions after placing an object, and using those distances as part of the evaluation. While Hance uses evaluation functions/goals, these are no specifically based on those four directional placeable distance per section as a metric. The prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach “the plurality of sections being arranged along a first-axis direction and a second-axis direction, the first-axis direction and the second-axis direction being orthogonal to each other; wherein the calculating of the one or more evaluation values includes calculating a plurality of placeable distances respectively in a first direction, a second direction, a third direction, and a fourth direction for each of the sections after the selected object is placed, the first direction being parallel to the first-axis direction, the second direction being opposite to the first direction, the third direction being parallel to the second-axis direction, the fourth direction being opposite to the third direction and calculating the one or more evaluation values based on the plurality of placeable distances”, as recited in amended claim 1 (and as similarly encompassed by independent claim 8).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are directed to allowable subject matter because the prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach: “A processing device, configured to: refer to a first area corresponding to a work area where a plurality of tasks related to a plurality of articles is performed, the first area including a plurality of sections, the plurality of sections being arranged along a first-axis direction and a second-axis direction, the first-axis direction and the second-axis direction being orthogonal to each other; refer to a plurality of objects corresponding to the plurality of articles, a size and a duration of the task being set for each of the plurality of objects; and generate a task plan by using the plurality of sizes and the plurality of durations, the task plan including placements of the plurality of objects in the first area, and a sequence of the plurality of placements., wherein the generation of the task plan includes selecting one of the plurality of objects, extracting one or more of the sections at which the selected object can be placed, calculating one or more evaluation values when placing the selected object in the one or more sections, wherein the calculating of the one or more evaluation values includes calculating a plurality of placeable distances respectively in a first direction, a second direction, a third direction, and a fourth direction for each of the sections after the selected object is placed, the first direction being parallel to the first-axis direction, the second direction being opposite to the first direction, the third direction being parallel to the second-axis direction, the fourth direction being opposite to the third direction and calculating the one or more evaluation values based on the plurality of placeable distances, and determining the placement of the selected object based on the one or more evaluation values; and cause a display device to display the task plan, wherein the processing device is configured to calculate as the one or more evaluation values based on a state of the first area after placing at least one of the plurality of objects, and determine the plurality of placements and the sequence based on the one or more evaluation values,” as recited in amended claim 1, “and “A generation method, comprising: causing a computer to refer to a first area corresponding to a work area where a plurality of tasks related to a plurality of articles is performed, the first area including a plurality of sections, the plurality of sections being arranged along a first-axis direction and a second-axis direction, the first-axis direction and the second-axis direction being orthogonal to each other, refer to a plurality of objects corresponding to the plurality of articles, a size and a duration of the task being set for each of the plurality of objects, generate a task plan by using the plurality of sizes and the plurality of durations, the task plan including placements of the plurality of objects in the first area, and a sequence of the plurality of placements, wherein the generation of the task plan includes selecting one of the plurality of objects, extracting one or more of the sections at which the selected object can be placed, calculating one or more evaluation values when placing the selected object in the one or more sections, wherein the calculating of the one or more evaluation values includes calculating a plurality of placeable distances respectively in a first direction, a second direction, a third direction, and a fourth direction for each of the sections after the selected object is placed, the first direction being parallel to the first-axis direction, the second direction being opposite to the first direction, the third direction being parallel to the second-axis direction, the fourth direction being opposite to the third direction and calculating the one or more evaluation values based on the plurality of placeable distances, and determining the placement of the selected object based on the one or more evaluation values; and cause a display device to display the task plan, wherein the generation method causes the computer to calculate the one or more evaluation values based on a state of the first area after placing at least one of the plurality of objects, and determine the plurality of placements and the sequence based on the one or more evaluation values”, as recited in amended claim 8, thus rendering claims 1-4 and 7-10 as allowable over prior art. However, 1-4 and 7-10 are not allowable because they remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 2 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsutsui et al., Pub. No.: US 2020/0184137 A1 – describes a layout design system and layout design method.
Suemitsu, Issei, et al. "Simultaneous optimization of layout and task schedule for robotic cellular manufacturing systems." Computers & Industrial Engineering 102 (2016): 396-407 – proposes a multi-objective layout design optimization technique for robotic cellular manufacturing system layouts that can simultaneously determine the positions of manufacturing components and also task scheduling.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST.
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 M. Epstein can be reached on (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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625