DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. Examiner Note: Please note that due to the preliminary amendments filed on 08/20/2024, Applicant has amended to add continuity information and delete reference numerals. Figure 23 of the Drawings is amended. The Abstract to the Specification Disclosure is amended to delete reference numerals. Claims 3-4 and 6-7 are amended to remove multiple dependency. Therefore, Claims 1-8 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Foreign Priority
3. The Examiner has noted the Applicants claiming Priority from Foreign Application JP2022-039709 filed on 03/14/2022 and 371 of PCT/JP2023/007171 Application filed on 02/27/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Therefore, Examiner notes the effective filing date of this application examined on the record is 03/14/2022.
Specification Disclosure Objections to Title
4. (A). The title of the invention “Information Processing Method and Information Processing Device” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed to.
Examiner suggests the following title from Applicant’s Original Specification at ¶ [0035-0036]: “Method and Device to Select Priority Data from Among a Plurality of Items Based on a Combination of a Unit of Equipment Among Units of Equipment and a Stoppage Factor to Improve Worker Productivity”. Please see MPEP § 606 and 37 CFR 1.121. Appropriate correction is required.
35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
These claim limitation(s) are shown below and reflected for Independent Claim 8 which appears to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f).
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Independent Claim 8:
(A): “an obtainer that obtains items of priority data each representing a priority for a combination of a unit of equipment among units of equipment and a stoppage factor, the priority being for recovery work for equipment that has stopped among the units of equipment” that uses the generic placeholder “obtainer” functionally modified by the verb “obtains” via the linking term “that”.
(B): “an estimator that estimates, for each item of the priority data, an equipment operating rate of overseen equipment among the units of equipment, the overseen equipment being equipment that a worker who performs the recovery work is in charge of” that uses the generic placeholder “estimator” functionally modified by the verb “estimates” via the linking term “that”.
(C): “a selector that selects, from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value” that uses the generic placeholder “selector” functionally modified by the verb “selects” via the linking term “that”.
(D): “an outputter that outputs the priority data selected” that uses the generic placeholder “outputter” functionally modified by the verb “outputs” via the linking term “that”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claim 8 is 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.
(A). Specifically, “Apparatus” Independent Claim 8 recites, among others:
(A1): “an obtainer that obtains items of priority data each representing a priority for a combination of a unit of equipment among units of equipment and a stoppage factor, the priority being for recovery work for equipment that has stopped among the units of equipment” that uses the generic placeholder “obtainer” functionally modified by the verb “obtains” via the linking term “that”.
(B1): “an estimator that estimates, for each item of the priority data, an equipment operating rate of overseen equipment among the units of equipment, the overseen equipment being equipment that a worker who performs the recovery work is in charge of” that uses the generic placeholder “estimator” functionally modified by the verb “estimates” via the linking term “that”.
(C1): “a selector that selects, from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value” that uses the generic placeholder “selector” functionally modified by the verb “selects” via the linking term “that”.
(D1): “an outputter that outputs the priority data selected” that uses the generic placeholder “outputter” functionally modified by the verb “outputs” via the linking term “that”.
The Original Specification doesn’t clearly, deliberately and sufficiently provide, for each of the generic placeholders “obtainer” & “estimator” & “selector” & “outputter” for:
➔ each of the adequate respective structure to perform each respective functions of:
“obtains items of priority data each representing a priority for a combination of a unit of equipment among units of equipment and a stoppage factor, the priority being for recovery work for equipment that has stopped among the units of equipment”;
“estimates, for each item of the priority data, an equipment operating rate of overseen equipment among the units of equipment, the overseen equipment being equipment that a worker who performs the recovery work is in charge of”
“selects, from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value”
“outputs the priority data selected”
and to clearly link each of the respective functions of:
“obtains items of priority data each representing a priority for a combination of a unit of equipment among units of equipment and a stoppage factor, the priority being for recovery work for equipment that has stopped among the units of equipment”;
“estimates, for each item of the priority data, an equipment operating rate of overseen equipment among the units of equipment, the overseen equipment being equipment that a worker who performs the recovery work is in charge of”
“selects, from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value”
“outputs the priority data selected”
Specifically, the Original Specification does not demonstrate that Applicant has made an
invention that achieves each and all of the respective claimed functions by each of the respective
structure because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary
skills in the art can reasonably conclude that inventor had possession of claimed invention.
Appropriate corrections are required.
9. 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.
10. Claim 8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(A). Specifically, “Apparatus” Independent Claim 8 recites, among others:
(A1): “an obtainer that obtains items of priority data each representing a priority for a combination of a unit of equipment among units of equipment and a stoppage factor, the priority being for recovery work for equipment that has stopped among the units of equipment” that uses the generic placeholder “obtainer” functionally modified by the verb “obtains” via the linking term “that”.
(B1): “an estimator that estimates, for each item of the priority data, an equipment operating rate of overseen equipment among the units of equipment, the overseen equipment being equipment that a worker who performs the recovery work is in charge of” that uses the generic placeholder “estimator” functionally modified by the verb “estimates” via the linking term “that”.
(C1): “a selector that selects, from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value” that uses the generic placeholder “selector” functionally modified by the verb “selects” via the linking term “that”.
(D1): “an outputter that outputs the priority data selected” that uses the generic placeholder “outputter” functionally modified by the verb “outputs” via the linking term “that”.
The Original Specification doesn’t clearly, deliberately and sufficiently provide, for each of the generic placeholders “obtainer” & “estimator” & “selector” & “outputter” for:
➔ each of the adequate respective structure to perform each respective functions of:
“obtains items of priority data each representing a priority for a combination of a unit of equipment among units of equipment and a stoppage factor, the priority being for recovery work for equipment that has stopped among the units of equipment”;
“estimates, for each item of the priority data, an equipment operating rate of overseen equipment among the units of equipment, the overseen equipment being equipment that a worker who performs the recovery work is in charge of”
“selects, from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value”
“outputs the priority data selected”
and to clearly link each of the respective functions of:
“obtains items of priority data each representing a priority for a combination of a unit of equipment among units of equipment and a stoppage factor, the priority being for recovery work for equipment that has stopped among the units of equipment”;
“estimates, for each item of the priority data, an equipment operating rate of overseen equipment among the units of equipment, the overseen equipment being equipment that a worker who performs the recovery work is in charge of”
“selects, from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value”
“outputs the priority data selected”
Specifically, the Original Specification does not demonstrate that Applicant has made an invention that achieve each and all of the respective claimed functions by each of the respective structure, thus rendering their underlining limitations vague and indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are focused to a statutory category namely, a “process” or a “method” (Claims 1-7) and a “system” or a “device” (Claim 8).
Step 2A Prong One: Independent Claims 1 and 8 recites limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely (see in bold except where strikethrough):
“obtaining items of priority data each representing a priority for a combination of a unit of equipment among units of equipment and a stoppage factor, the priority being for recovery work for equipment that has stopped among the units of equipment” (see Independent Claim 1);
“estimating, for each item of the priority data, an equipment operating rate of overseen equipment among the units of equipment, the overseen equipment being equipment that a worker who performs the recovery work is in charge of” (see Independent Claim 1);
“selecting, from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value” (see Independent Claim 1);
“outputting the priority data selected” (see Independent Claim 1);
“ obtains items of priority data each representing a priority for a combination of a unit of equipment among units of equipment and a stoppage factor, the priority being for recovery work for equipment that has stopped among the units of equipment” (see Independent Claim 8);
“ estimates, for each item of the priority data, an equipment operating rate of overseen equipment among the units of equipment, the overseen equipment being equipment that a worker who performs the recovery work is in charge of” (see Independent Claim 8);
“ selects, from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value” (see Independent Claim 8);
“ outputs the priority data selected” (see Independent Claim 8).
Here, Independent Claims 1 and 8 as a whole are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and selecting data to optimize equipment maintenance schedules. The claim limitations recite:
Mental Processes: The steps of "estimating" a rate and "selecting" data based on a threshold represent mathematical calculations and logical comparisons that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities: The overall concept manages a worker's tasks and responsibilities by determining which stopped equipment the worker should prioritize for recovery work. Examiner analyzes each claim limitation step below under 35 U.S.C. 101 step 2a prong 1 as follows: The first claim limitation step of: "obtaining items of priority data..." recites gathering and collecting data (priorities for equipment-stoppage combinations). Data collection is a well-established sub-category of abstract ideas. This step covers collecting data points (equipment identity, stoppage factors, priority levels). Simply collecting or receiving data is a generic data-gathering step. It represents information that a human supervisor could gather using a paper logbook. The second claim limitation step of: "estimating, for each item of the priority data, an equipment operating rate...", Examiner notes that Estimating" an operating rate is a Mental Process. It relies on mathematical calculation, statistical evaluation, or algorithmic processing of data, which are fundamental abstract concepts. "Estimating" or calculating a rate based on worker assignments is a purely mathematical or mental calculation. A human planner can look at a worker's assigned equipment and compute or estimate the projected operating rate using basic arithmetic. Thirdly, the claim limitation of: “selecting, from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value” is a Mental Process which consists of a basic logical comparison (greater than or equal to a threshold). Comparing a calculated value to a filter or threshold is a foundational mathematical and logical concept. Comparing a calculated value (operating rate) against a benchmark (threshold value) and selecting data based on that comparison is a standard mental filtering process. It mimics basic human decision-making. Last of all, the claim limitation of: "outputting the priority data selected" is noted as merely outputting results which is the final step of a data processing cycle and is considered part of the overarching abstract idea of data manipulation. Displaying or transmitting the result of a mental selection is a generic data-delivery step. It serves to inform a human worker of their task priority, organizing human workflow.
These abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (1) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (2) using pen and paper as a physical aid, which in order to help perform these mental steps does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. The use of "physical aids" in implementing the abstract mental process, does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C.
Additionally, or alternatively, these abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including teachings or following rules or instructions).
That is, other than reciting (e.g., “obtainer” & “estimator” & “selector” & “outputter” etc…), nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (1) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (2) using pen and paper as a physical aid and additionally or alternatively as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including teachings or following rules or instructions).
Therefore, at step 2a prong 1, Yes, Claims 1-8 recites an abstract idea. We proceed onto analyzing the claims at step 2a prong 2.
Step 2A Prong Two: With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claim 1 recites no additional elements. Independent Claim 8 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “obtainer” & “estimator” & “selector” & “outputter”). These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Examiner analyzes each claim limitation step below under 35 U.S.C. 101 step 2a prong 2 as follows for Independent Claims 1 and 8: The first claim limitation step of: "obtaining items of priority data..." -> Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is it integrated into a practical application?): No. This step merely acts as a data-gathering step to provide the necessary inputs for the subsequent analytical steps. It does not apply the data to a specific technological process. The second claim limitation step of: "estimating, for each item of the priority data, an equipment operating rate..." -> Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is it integrated into a practical application?): No. This step calculates a metric (operating rate) but does not use that metric to alter a physical process, improve the functioning of a computer itself, or drive a technological solution. It remains a high-level mathematical or logical exercise. The third claim limitation step of: “selecting, from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value” -> Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is it integrated into a practical application?): No. Filtering data based on a rule or threshold value does not integrate the idea into a practical application. It is simply an analytical step that narrows down a dataset without producing a tangible, non-abstract technological result. Last of all, the claim limitation of: "outputting the priority data selected" -> Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is it integrated into a practical application?): No. Merely displaying, transmitting, or outputting the results of an abstract data analysis does not integrate the process into a practical application. It acts as generic post-solution activity.
For Independent Claims 1 and 8, Examiner notes that the steps simply take the abstract concepts of estimating and filtering priority data and instruct a generic computer or system to execute them. They do not provide a specific, non-conventional technical mechanism to achieve the result (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f)). Additionally, or alternatively, these steps also limit the mathematical estimation and data filtering to "equipment recovery work," "stoppage factors," and "overseen equipment" which merely restricts the abstract idea to the field of industrial maintenance and worker management (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)). Under USPTO guidance, limiting an abstract idea to a specific technological environment or industry field of use does not make these claims patent-eligible. The limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer itself, nor do they improve an underlying chemical, mechanical, or physical industrial process. Instead, they use a computer as a tool to process data to optimize human worker efficiency. Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Moreover, with respect to Independent Claims 1 and 8, certain/particular limitations shown recite (1) mere data gathering (e.g., “obtaining items of priority data each representing a priority for a combination of a unit of equipment among units of equipment and a stoppage factor, the priority being for recovery work for equipment that has stopped among the units of equipment” & “an obtainer that obtains items of priority data each representing a priority for a combination of a unit of equipment among units of equipment and a stoppage factor, the priority being for recovery work for equipment that has stopped among the units of equipment”) and (2) mere data outputting (e.g., “outputting the priority data selected” & “an outputter that outputs the priority data selected”) and (3) selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (e.g., “selecting, from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold” & “a selector that selects, from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value”) in which each of these claim limitations reflects mere insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)).
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. Therefore, at step 2a prong 2, Claims 1-8 are directed to the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: (As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent Claim 1 recites no additional elements. Independent Claim 8 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “obtainer” & “estimator” & “selector” & “outputter”). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05 (f) and MPEP § 2106.05 (h). Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a general-purpose computer executing the instructions to implement the invention (e.g., see Applicant’s Original Specification at ¶ [0180]: “The elements such as the controller may be configured of one or more electronic circuits. The one or more electronic circuits may each be a general-purpose circuit or a dedicated circuit.”).
Examiner analyzes each claim limitation step below under 35 U.S.C. 101 step 2a prong 2 as follows for Independent Claims 1 and 8: The first claim limitation step of: "obtaining items of priority data..." -> Step 2B (Does it provide an inventive concept?): No. "Obtaining" data is a generic, conventional computer function. It does not add an inventive concept because it simply sets the stage for the abstract analysis. This is conventional, generic data-gathering. It is well-established law (Electric Power Group) that collecting data to feed into an abstract idea does not supply an inventive concept. The second claim limitation step of: "estimating, for each item of the priority data, an equipment operating rate..." -> Step 2B (Does it provide an inventive concept?): No. Running a calculation or estimation algorithm on data is a standard capability of generic computers. It lacks an "inventive concept" because it does not require a novel hardware architecture or a unique physical transformation. This is the core mathematical/mental exception itself. An abstract idea cannot provide its own inventive concept. The third claim limitation step of: “selecting, from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value” -> Step 2B (Does it provide an inventive concept?): No. Instructing a computer to filter data using a threshold condition is a routine and conventional programming technique. It does not provide "substantially more" than the abstract idea itself. Mathematical filtering and algorithmic sorting are conventional computer functions. Executing a standard mathematical comparison (≥ threshold) is routine and generic. Last of all, the claim limitation of: "outputting the priority data selected" -> Step 2B (Does it provide an inventive concept?): No. Outputting data is an ordinary, conventional computer function. It fails to provide an inventive concept because it does not involve any non-conventional hardware or specialized technological machinery. This is a generic post-solution activity. Printing, displaying, or transmitting the results of an abstract calculation does not add an inventive concept.
When looking at the steps as an ordered combination, they describe a logical workflow: collect data -> calculate a rate -> filter by a threshold -> output results. This sequence follows the natural, conventional steps of data processing. There is no inventive integration or unexpected synergy between the steps that transforms the invention into something significantly more than a computerized method of organizing a maintenance schedule.
Moreover, with respect to Independent Claims 1 and 8, certain/particular limitations shown recite (1) mere data gathering (e.g., “obtaining items of priority data each representing a priority for a combination of a unit of equipment among units of equipment and a stoppage factor, the priority being for recovery work for equipment that has stopped among the units of equipment” & “an obtainer that obtains items of priority data each representing a priority for a combination of a unit of equipment among units of equipment and a stoppage factor, the priority being for recovery work for equipment that has stopped among the units of equipment”) and (2) mere data outputting (e.g., “outputting the priority data selected” & “an outputter that outputs the priority data selected”) in which each of these claim limitations reflects mere insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)). Furthermore, these certain/particular claim limitations as demonstrated above for Independent Claims 1 and 8 reflects Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities (WURC) under MPEP § 2106.05 (d) ii: See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec,838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
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. 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 2-7 recite substantially the same or similar additional elements as addressed above and when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) with these limitations recite the same abstract idea(s) as shown in Independent Claims 1 and 8 along with further steps/details pertaining to “Mental Processes” which pertains to (1) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (2) using pen and paper as a physical aid and additionally or alternatively as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including teachings or following rules or instructions).
Dependent Claims 2-7 further narrow the abstract ideas, and are therefore still ineligible for the reasons previously provided in Steps 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B for Independent Claims 1 and 8. Moreover, with respect to Dependent Claims 5 and 7, certain/particular limitations shown recite (1) mere data gathering (e.g., “obtaining worker assignment conditions including a total number of the units of equipment and a total number of the workers” (see Dependent Claim 5) & “obtaining operating performance data representing operating statuses of the equipment and work performance data representing work times of the workers” (see Dependent Claim 7)) in which each of these claim limitations reflects mere insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)). Furthermore, these certain/particular claim limitations as demonstrated above for Independent Claims 1 and 8 reflects Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities (WURC) under MPEP § 2106.05 (d) ii: See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec,838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Therefore, 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. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, under Step 2B, Claims 1-8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, Claims 1-8 are ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
13. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
14. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
15. Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub (US 2008/0103715 A1) hereinafter Tsuda, et. al.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Tsuda information processing method teaches the following:
- obtaining items of priority data (see at least Tsuda: ¶ [0083] & ¶ [0095] & ¶ [0145]) each representing a priority for a combination of a unit of equipment among units of equipment and a stoppage factor, the priority being for recovery work for equipment that has stopped among the units of equipment (see at least Tsuda: ¶ [0010-0011] & ¶ [0073-0076] & ¶ [0095]. Tsuda teaches that the operational availability is an index excluding an influence exerted by the stoppage of other pieces of equipment, more specifically, an index calculated without the downtime caused by the other pieces of equipment, and therefore is suitable to obtain efficiency of actual operation of each piece of the equipment. The stoppage of a production line caused by one piece of equipment lowers the overall equipment effectiveness of every piece of equipment in the production line. Because of this, even if there is a piece of equipment having low overall equipment effectiveness, it cannot be judged whether the equipment stopped because of its own fault or because of the other piece of equipment's fault. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0067]: The "addition" discussed herein may be preparation of new information which is a combination of the operation information and time information, or formation of groups made up with the corresponding operation information and time information. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0095]: The priority rank is represented by numeric values, for example, the output unit 213 prepares information for outputting the priority with the addition of the values and outputs it. In the case where the display device such as a display already has been displaying other images, for example, an image indicating the individual operating rates, the output unit 213 can superimpose the image for outputting the priority rank to the individual operating rates on the already displayed image, replace the already displayed image with the image of the priority rank, or show the image of the priority rank in a new window.);
- estimating, for each item of the priority data, an equipment operating rate of overseen equipment among the units of equipment (see at least Tsuda: Figs. 12-15 & ¶ [0144-0145]. Tsuda teaches that this can identify the production apparatus 11 that is the biggest factor to lower the operating rate of the production line. For example, with reference to the individual operating rates in FIG. 11, "Equipment C" has the smallest individual operating rate of "0.65" at "19:00" on "14/04/2006", and therefore the individual operating rate of Equipment C is highlighted. The representation shown in FIG. 12 allows operators to find out in a instance the production apparatus 11 having a low individual operating rate, which chiefly causes reduction of the operating rate of the production line. Regarding production number, equipment for collecting data in the production line is set so as to generate a pulse when the preset number of the work has passed through the equipment and to count the pulses obtained in a predetermined period to roughly estimate the production number. Then, the rough estimation result of the production number is displayed.), the overseen equipment being equipment that a worker who performs the recovery work is in charge of (see at least Tsuda: ¶ [0060] & ¶ [0151]. Tsuda notes that such display of the individual operating rate allows operators to grasp the long-term trend of the individual operating rate. For example, it is found that this production apparatus 11 tends to decrease its individual operating rate around January every year. This long-term trend allows the operators to decide, for example, to perform maintenance every November, which is immediately before the time the individual operating rate is lowered. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0060]: During the "manual stop" period, the operator takes action to eliminate the cause of abnormal events in the production apparatuses 11. The production apparatus 11 usually outputs the operation information, in real time, concurrently with acquisition of the operation information.);
- selecting (see at least Tsuda: ¶ [0026] & ¶ [0068] & ¶ [0083]. Tsuda is able to selectively output or selectively identify desired operation information or state information,), from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value (see at least Tsuda: (see Dependent Claim 7 of Tsuda) & ¶ [0020] & ¶ [0076] & ¶ [0137]. Tsuda teaches that the individual operating rates of the one or more production apparatuses with a predetermined threshold and outputs a warning about the production apparatuses having the individual operating rate lower than the predetermined threshold. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0020]: The operating condition monitoring apparatus of the present invention further comprises a loss determination unit for determining downtime that is the sum of one or more times of the manual stop state that come immediately after the time of the abnormal stop state and are obtained from the state information and one or more times of the abnormal stop state that come immediately before one or more of the time of the manual stop state and are obtained from the state information, to be a lost time caused by a temporary stop when the downtime is smaller than a previously set predetermined threshold, determining the downtime to be a lost time caused by failures of the production apparatus itself when the downtime is larger than the predetermined threshold, and determining time of the manual stop state that comes immediately after the time of the normal operating state to be a lost time caused by setup task. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0076]: Tsuda teaches that when downtime that is the sum of each one or more time of "manual stop" state immediately after the "abnormal stop" and each of one or more times of "abnormal stop" state immediately before the "manual stop" state is smaller than a predetermined threshold, the loss determination unit 206 determines the downtime as a "lost time caused by temporary stop". Alternatively, when the downtime is greater than the predetermined threshold, the loss determination unit 206 determines the downtime as a "lost time caused by the production apparatus's malfunction". See also Tsuda at ¶ [0137]: FIG. 9 shows an example of state information into which the state information in FIG. 8 is categorized according to the causes of a stoppage by the time-information structure unit 202. In FIG. 9, items having the same name as those in FIG. 8 are the same items as or correspond to the items in FIG. 8.);
- outputting the priority data selected (see at least Tsuda: (see Dependent Claim 8 of Tsuda) & ¶ [0030] & ¶ [0083] & ¶ [0095]. Tsuda teaches that the output unit outputs restoration priority of the one or more production apparatuses in the order from the apparatus having the lowest individual operating rate to the highest. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0030]: The output unit outputs restoration priority of the one or more production apparatuses in the order from the apparatus having the lowest individual operating rate to the highest. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0083]: The output unit 213 can be designed to prepare information indicating restoration priority in the order from the production apparatus 11 having the lowest individual operating rate for one or more production apparatuses 11 and to output the restoration priority. In this case, the priority rank does not need to be assigned to all of the production apparatuses 11, but only a predetermined number of production apparatuses 11 lined up in ascending order of the individual operating rate. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0095]: The output unit 213 prepares information for outputting priority for restoration in the order from the lowest individual operating rates each associated with each of one or more production apparatuses, and outputs the information in an output device such as a display (not shown). If the priority rank is represented by numeric values, for example, the output unit 213 prepares information for outputting the priority with the addition of the values and outputs it.)
Regarding Independent Claim 8, Tsuda information processing device teaches the following:
- an obtainer (see at least Tsuda: Figs. 1-2.) that obtains items of priority data (see at least Tsuda: ¶ [0083] & ¶ [0095] & ¶ [0145]) each representing a priority for a combination of a unit of equipment among units of equipment and a stoppage factor, the priority being for recovery work for equipment that has stopped among the units of equipment (see at least Tsuda: ¶ [0010-0011] & ¶ [0073-0076] & ¶ [0095]. Tsuda teaches that the operational availability is an index excluding an influence exerted by the stoppage of other pieces of equipment, more specifically, an index calculated without the downtime caused by the other pieces of equipment, and therefore is suitable to obtain efficiency of actual operation of each piece of the equipment. The stoppage of a production line caused by one piece of equipment lowers the overall equipment effectiveness of every piece of equipment in the production line. Because of this, even if there is a piece of equipment having low overall equipment effectiveness, it cannot be judged whether the equipment stopped because of its own fault or because of the other piece of equipment's fault. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0067]: The "addition" discussed herein may be preparation of new information which is a combination of the operation information and time information, or formation of groups made up with the corresponding operation information and time information. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0095]: The priority rank is represented by numeric values, for example, the output unit 213 prepares information for outputting the priority with the addition of the values and outputs it. In the case where the display device such as a display already has been displaying other images, for example, an image indicating the individual operating rates, the output unit 213 can superimpose the image for outputting the priority rank to the individual operating rates on the already displayed image, replace the already displayed image with the image of the priority rank, or show the image of the priority rank in a new window.);
- an estimator (see at least Tsuda: Figs. 1-2.) that estimates, for each item of the priority data, an equipment operating rate of overseen equipment among the units of equipment (see at least Tsuda: Figs. 12-15 & ¶ [0144-0145]. Tsuda teaches that this can identify the production apparatus 11 that is the biggest factor to lower the operating rate of the production line. For example, with reference to the individual operating rates in FIG. 11, "Equipment C" has the smallest individual operating rate of "0.65" at "19:00" on "14/04/2006", and therefore the individual operating rate of Equipment C is highlighted. The representation shown in FIG. 12 allows operators to find out in a instance the production apparatus 11 having a low individual operating rate, which chiefly causes reduction of the operating rate of the production line. Regarding production number, equipment for collecting data in the production line is set so as to generate a pulse when the preset number of the work has passed through the equipment and to count the pulses obtained in a predetermined period to roughly estimate the production number. Then, the rough estimation result of the production number is displayed.), the overseen equipment being equipment that a worker who performs the recovery work is in charge of (see at least Tsuda: ¶ [0060] & ¶ [0151]. Tsuda notes that such display of the individual operating rate allows operators to grasp the long-term trend of the individual operating rate. For example, it is found that this production apparatus 11 tends to decrease its individual operating rate around January every year. This long-term trend allows the operators to decide, for example, to perform maintenance every November, which is immediately before the time the individual operating rate is lowered. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0060]: During the "manual stop" period, the operator takes action to eliminate the cause of abnormal events in the production apparatuses 11. The production apparatus 11 usually outputs the operation information, in real time, concurrently with acquisition of the operation information.);
- a selector (see at least Tsuda: Figs. 1-2.) that selects (see at least Tsuda: ¶ [0026] & ¶ [0068] & ¶ [0083]. Tsuda is able to selectively output or selectively identify desired operation information or state information,), from among the items of priority data, priority data for which the equipment operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value (see at least Tsuda: (see Dependent Claim 7 of Tsuda) & ¶ [0020] & ¶ [0076] & ¶ [0137]. Tsuda teaches that the individual operating rates of the one or more production apparatuses with a predetermined threshold and outputs a warning about the production apparatuses having the individual operating rate lower than the predetermined threshold. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0020]: The operating condition monitoring apparatus of the present invention further comprises a loss determination unit for determining downtime that is the sum of one or more times of the manual stop state that come immediately after the time of the abnormal stop state and are obtained from the state information and one or more times of the abnormal stop state that come immediately before one or more of the time of the manual stop state and are obtained from the state information, to be a lost time caused by a temporary stop when the downtime is smaller than a previously set predetermined threshold, determining the downtime to be a lost time caused by failures of the production apparatus itself when the downtime is larger than the predetermined threshold, and determining time of the manual stop state that comes immediately after the time of the normal operating state to be a lost time caused by setup task. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0076]: Tsuda teaches that when downtime that is the sum of each one or more time of "manual stop" state immediately after the "abnormal stop" and each of one or more times of "abnormal stop" state immediately before the "manual stop" state is smaller than a predetermined threshold, the loss determination unit 206 determines the downtime as a "lost time caused by temporary stop". Alternatively, when the downtime is greater than the predetermined threshold, the loss determination unit 206 determines the downtime as a "lost time caused by the production apparatus's malfunction". See also Tsuda at ¶ [0137]: FIG. 9 shows an example of state information into which the state information in FIG. 8 is categorized according to the causes of a stoppage by the time-information structure unit 202. In FIG. 9, items having the same name as those in FIG. 8 are the same items as or correspond to the items in FIG. 8.);
- an outputter (see at least Tsuda: Fig. 1 item #14 noting “output apparatus”.) that outputs the priority data selected (see at least Tsuda: (see Dependent Claim 8 of Tsuda) & ¶ [0030] & ¶ [0083] & ¶ [0095]. Tsuda teaches that the output unit outputs restoration priority of the one or more production apparatuses in the order from the apparatus having the lowest individual operating rate to the highest. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0030]: The output unit outputs restoration priority of the one or more production apparatuses in the order from the apparatus having the lowest individual operating rate to the highest. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0083]: The output unit 213 can be designed to prepare information indicating restoration priority in the order from the production apparatus 11 having the lowest individual operating rate for one or more production apparatuses 11 and to output the restoration priority. In this case, the priority rank does not need to be assigned to all of the production apparatuses 11, but only a predetermined number of production apparatuses 11 lined up in ascending order of the individual operating rate. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0095]: The output unit 213 prepares information for outputting priority for restoration in the order from the lowest individual operating rates each associated with each of one or more production apparatuses, and outputs the information in an output device such as a display (not shown). If the priority rank is represented by numeric values, for example, the output unit 213 prepares information for outputting the priority with the addition of the values and outputs it.)
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Tsuda information processing method teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Tsuda further teaches the information processing method comprising:
- wherein in the estimating, the equipment operating rate is estimated as a ratio of (i) a sum of operating times of each unit of the overseen equipment to (ii) a sum of the operating times of each unit of the overseen equipment and downtimes of each unit of the overseen equipment (see at least Tsuda: ¶ [0072-0076] & ¶ [0144-0146] & Figs. 11-13. Tsuda teaches that regarding production number, equipment for collecting data in the production line is set so as to generate a pulse when the preset number of the work has passed through the equipment and to count the pulses obtained in a predetermined period to roughly estimate the production number. Then, the rough estimation result of the production number is displayed. For example, with reference to the individual operating rates in FIG. 11, "Equipment C" has the smallest individual operating rate of "0.65" at "19:00" on "14/04/2006", and therefore the individual operating rate of Equipment C is highlighted. The representation shown in FIG. 12 allows operators to find out in an instance the production apparatus 11 having a low individual operating rate, which chiefly causes reduction of the operating rate of the production line. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0072]: State information defining the total time of the "stop caused by work" state and the "manual stop" state immediately thereafter, in other words state information defining the initial time and termination time of the summed time is prepared and newly categorized into the state information of "work-caused stop continuation". Among thus categorized state information, the sum of the time of "restoration task" and the above-mentioned time of "abnormal stop" state may be defined as "downtime caused by the production apparatus itself", while the sum of the times of "work-caused stop continuation" may be defined as "downtime caused by the other production apparatus". The time-information structure unit 202 calculates the sum total of the above-mentioned time of "normal operation" state determined based on the state information obtained by the state-information acquisition unit 201 and "downtime caused by the other production apparatus" within the above-mentioned predetermined period in order to prepare information indicating the total sum. This total sum information is the above-mentioned operating-time information. See also Tsuda at ¶ [0075]: The individual operating rate is a potential operating rate of a single piece of equipment, or a single production apparatus. Specifically, the individual operating rate is a proportion of a time in which possibly the production apparatus has been operated, that is, a time excluding downtime caused by the production apparatus's malfunction or the like to a time allocated to production. The individual operating rate is expressed by "individual operating rate=operating time/load time".)
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Tsuda information processing method teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Tsuda further teaches the information processing method comprising:
- wherein in the selecting, the item of priority data for which the equipment operating rate is highest is selected (see at least Tsuda: ¶ [0030] & (see Dependent Claim 8 of Tsuda).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
17. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
18. 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.
19. Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub (US 2008/0103715 A1) hereinafter Tsuda, et. al, and in view of US PG Pub (US 2007/0288306 A1) hereinafter Ohishi, et. al.
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Tsuda information processing method does not explicitly disclose, but Ohishi does disclose the following:
- generating worker assignment data representing assignments of workers to the overseen equipment the workers are in charge of among the units of equipment, wherein the estimating and the selecting are performed for each item of the worker assignment data and for each of the workers (see at least Ohishi: ¶ [0166-0169] & ¶ [0190-0191].);
- estimating an overall operating rate for each item of the worker assignment data based on the priority data and the equipment operating rate of the overseen equipment for each of the workers, the overall operating rate being an equipment operating rate for the units of equipment as a whole (see at least Ohishi: ¶ [0031] & ¶ [0290] & ¶ [0299-0300].);
- wherein in the outputting, the worker assignment data for which the overall operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value and the priority data for each of the workers are output (see at least Ohishi: ¶ [0011-0013] & ¶ [0290] & ¶ [0299-0300].).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined / modified the teachings of Tsuda information processing method with the aforementioned teachings of: generating worker assignment data representing assignments of workers to the overseen equipment the workers are in charge of among the units of equipment, wherein the estimating and the selecting are performed for each item of the worker assignment data and for each of the workers & estimating an overall operating rate for each item of the worker assignment data based on the priority data and the equipment operating rate of the overseen equipment for each of the workers, the overall operating rate being an equipment operating rate for the units of equipment as a whole & wherein in the outputting, the worker assignment data for which the overall operating rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value and the priority data for each of the workers are output, and in further view of Ohishi, in order to manage the performance information of rework and a retrieval unit for retrieving the database in accordance with each monitor item for monitoring the rework performance information. It is therefore possible to visualize those factors which may oppress the company profit by collecting the number of man-hours of counter-plans for the component defects, the work defects and the design defects that may occur during the production. It is also possible to visualize those factors which may oppress the company profit by making an IT system investment in only the rework process without picking up the entire production process as the investment object. Furthermore, assistance to promote production improvement activities for reducing the production cost because the loss cost deteriorating the company profit can be visualized (see at least Ohishi: ¶ [0204].)
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for an information processing method and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Ohishi, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Tsuda / Ohishi information processing method teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 4 above, and Ohishi further teaches the information processing method comprising:
- obtaining operating performance data representing operating statuses of the equipment (see at least Ohishi: ¶ [0278] & Figs. 37-39. Ohishi teaches that the mold history management information links the start (time) of a status and its end (time) and a daily total and a full total for each mold when the status such as an operation, an inspection, etc, occurs. Incidentally, the term “total” represents “total use time (total use information)”.) and work performance data representing work times of the workers (see at least Ohishi: ¶ [0238-0240] & Fig. 19 & Figs. 25-26. Ohishi teaches that the operation processing portion 3033 calculates the work time, the work interruption time and the number of times of interruption from the work performance data of the direction storage portion 3031, generates the direction work performance list and stores it to the work management storage portion 3032. See also Ohishi at ¶ [0240]: FIG. 27A shows that the work start time is 9:00, the work end time is 10:40 and their difference as the work time is 1:40 as shown in FIG. 26. The interruption time is 15 minutes and the number of times of interruption is 1. In contrast, according to the method shown in FIG. 27B, the work start time is 9:00 and the work end time is 10:40 in the same way as in the method shown in FIG. 27A but the interruption time and the number of times of interruption are not known. See also Ohishi at ¶ [0242]: The database server 3030 can calculate the work time, the work interruption time or the number of times of work interruption from the difference between the throw-in time and the take-out time. See specifically at Ohishi at Fig. 19 noting the “rework direction work loss cost list” table showing each worker representing their corresponding worker # and also each of their “work times”.)
- estimating, based on the operating performance data (see at least Ohishi: ¶ [0278] & Figs. 37-39. Ohishi teaches that the mold history management information links the start (time) of a status and its end (time) and a daily total and a full total for each mold when the status such as an operation, an inspection, etc, occurs. Incidentally, the term “total” represents “total use time (total use information)”.) and the work performance data (see at least Ohishi: ¶ [0238-0240] & Fig. 19 & Figs. 25-26. Ohishi teaches that the operation processing portion 3033 calculates the work time, the work interruption time and the number of times of interruption from the work performance data of the direction storage portion 3031, generates the direction work performance list and stores it to the work management storage portion 3032. See also Ohishi at ¶ [0240]: FIG. 27A shows that the work start time is 9:00, the work end time is 10:40 and their difference as the work time is 1:40 as shown in FIG. 26. The interruption time is 15 minutes and the number of times of interruption is 1. In contrast, according to the method shown in FIG. 27B, the work start time is 9:00 and the work end time is 10:40 in the same way as in the method shown in FIG. 27A but the interruption time and the number of times of interruption are not known. See also Ohishi at ¶ [0242]: The database server 3030 can calculate the work time, the work interruption time or the number of times of work interruption from the difference between the throw-in time and the take-out time. See specifically at Ohishi at Fig. 19 noting the “rework direction work loss cost list” table showing each worker representing their corresponding worker # and also each of their “work times”.), operating time distributions for each unit of the equipment and work time distributions for each of the workers (see at least Ohishi: ¶ [0202] & ¶ [0381] & Figs. 59A-59B. Ohishi notes that FIG. 59 shows the result of the processing of the steps S5004 to 5006 of the flowchart of FIG. 57 on the basis of each work performance shown in FIGS. 56A and 56B. FIG. 59A shows the time distribution of the work of the direction A01 and FIG. 59B shows the time distribution of the work of the direction A02. FIG. 59A is a table showing a time distribution of a work of a direction A01 and FIG. 59B is a table showing a time distribution of a work of a direction A02. Collection of rework performances of each of the types and models of products/semi-finished products as rework objects, and rework work frequency distribution. Work frequency distribution of products/semi-finished products as rework objects per each period (per each month, per each week, etc).);
- wherein in the estimating of the equipment operating rate, the equipment operating rate is estimated for each item of the worker assignment data and for each of the workers, using the operating time distributions and the work time distributions (see at least Ohishi: Figs. 59A-59B & ¶ [0381].).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined / modified the teachings of Tsuda / Ohishi information processing method with the aforementioned teachings of: obtaining operating performance data representing operating statuses of the equipment and work performance data representing work times of the workers & estimating, based on the operating performance data and the work performance data, operating time distributions for each unit of the equipment and work time distributions for each of the workers, wherein in the estimating of the equipment operating rate, the equipment operating rate is estimated for each item of the worker assignment data and for each of the workers, using the operating time distributions and the work time distributions, and in further view of Ohishi, in order to manage the performance information of rework and a retrieval unit for retrieving the database in accordance with each monitor item for monitoring the rework performance information. It is therefore possible to visualize those factors which may oppress the company profit by collecting the number of man-hours of counter-plans for the component defects, the work defects and the design defects that may occur during the production. It is also possible to visualize those factors which may oppress the company profit by making an IT system investment in only the rework process without picking up the entire production process as the investment object. Furthermore, assistance to promote production improvement activities for reducing the production cost because the loss cost deteriorating the company profit can be visualized (see at least Ohishi: ¶ [0204].)
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for an information processing method and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Ohishi, the results of the combination were predictable.
20. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub (US 2008/0103715 A1) hereinafter Tsuda, et. al, and in view of US PG Pub (US 2007/0288306 A1) hereinafter Ohishi, et. al, and in further view of US PG Pub (US 2014/0324207 A1) hereinafter Nagahara, et. al.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Tsuda / Ohishi information processing method does not explicitly disclose, but Nagahara does disclose the following:
- obtaining worker assignment conditions including a total number of the units of equipment and a total number of the workers (see at least Nagahara: ¶ [0007] & ¶ [0041]. Nagahara notes work time information including at least an assigned process, a date, and a work time per piece of equipment and per worker. See also Nagahara at ¶ [0041]: The equipment/worker number column 112b stores information identifying the equipment and/or workers involved. The assigned process column 112c stores information identifying the processes assigned to the equipment and/or workers identified in the equipment/worker number column 112b on the dates identified in the date column 112a. The work time column 112d stores information identifying the times worked during the processes identified in the assigned process column 112c by the equipment and/or worker identified in the equipment/worker number column 112b on the dates identified in the date column 112a.);
- wherein in the generating, the worker assignment data is generated based on the worker assignment conditions (see at least Nagahara: ¶ [0041] & ¶ [0056-0058]. Nagahara teaches that the work result management device 220 accepts input of the work result information about equipment and workers from the user of the device 220 and, at a predetermined point in time or in response to a request from the operation time calculation device 210, transmits the accepted work result information to the operation time calculation device 210.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined / modified the teachings of Tsuda / Ohishi information processing method with the aforementioned teachings of: obtaining worker assignment conditions including a total number of the units of equipment and a total number of the workers & wherein in the generating, the worker assignment data is generated based on the worker assignment conditions, and in further view of Nagahara, whereby the user of this device in Nagahara can calculate operation times even if operation start dates and times or operation end dates and times are missing from work result information (see at least Nagahara: ¶ [0009].). Additionally, in solving the above problems, there is provided an operation time calculation method using operation result information from a manufacturing floor, the operation time calculation method including causing a computer equipped with a storage unit, an input unit, a control unit, and a display unit to function so that the storage unit stores operation result information including at least operation process information, start date and time information, and end date and time information about each operation implemented; work time information including at least an assigned process, a date, and a work time per piece of equipment and per worker (see at least Nagahara: ¶ [0008].).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for an information processing method and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Nagahara, the results of the combination were predictable.
21. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub (US 2008/0103715 A1) hereinafter Tsuda, et. al, and in view of US PG Pub (US 2007/0288306 A1) hereinafter Ohishi, et. al, and in further view of US PG Pub (US 2022/0011736 A1) hereinafter Ishimura, et. al.
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Tsuda / Ohishi information processing method does not explicitly disclose, but Ishimura does disclose the following:
- wherein in the outputting, the worker assignment data (see at least Ishimura: Figs. 9-11 & Fig. 18. Fig. 9 specifying “assignment of worker” in the GUI picture of the Trouble List. See also Fig. 10 showing worker list (e.g., “Worker B and Skills Possessed Without Tool Operation Experience”.) for which the overall operating rate is highest and the priority data for each of the workers are output (see at least Ishimura: ¶ [0171-0173] & ¶ [0220-0221]. Ishimura notes that the work supervisor needs to assign workers in consideration of the degrees of importance of the respective anomalies. In the event of anomalies in a plurality of lines, the work supervisor needs to assign workers in consideration of a degree of priority regarding an anomaly of which line should be preferentially addressed. Since one line normally has a plurality of steps, in the event of anomalies in two or more of the steps, the work supervisor needs to assign workers in consideration of the respective degrees of priority of the two or more anomalies. The work supervisor thus assigns workers using such degree of importance and degree of priority. Such degree of importance and degree of priority are pre-stored in server 3 and are displayed in terminal device 10. See also Ishimura at ¶ [0098]: The manufacturing execution system obtains information from a manufacturing device or facility to be controlled, and monitors and manages the overall production. See also Ishimura at ¶ [0173]: The work supervisor reviews the assignment of workers. Server 3 makes an evaluation again based on the reviewed assignment. A series of such processing is repeated until a high evaluation (evaluation of not less than a certain level) is obtained. When a high evaluation is not obtained even after evaluations are repeatedly made, server 3 may notify the work supervisor of the review of a target completion time. See also Ishimura: Figs. 9-11 & Fig. 18.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined / modified the teachings of Tsuda / Ohishi information processing method with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein in the outputting, the worker assignment data for which the overall operating rate is highest and the priority data for each of the workers are output, and in further view of Ishimura, in which automatically assigns a worker to work based on a pre-installed program, but does not review the assignment to the work. In the use of this worker assignment device, thus, if progress delays in part of the work, a longer-than-expected time may be required to complete the entire work. Therefore, the present disclosure has been made in view of the above problem, and an object thereof is to provide a work support system, an information processor, and a work support method that enable rapid recovery from each anomaly in the event of a plurality of anomalies (see at least Ishimura: ¶ [0007].)
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for an information processing method and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Ishimura, the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
NPL Documents
Gopalakrishnan, Maheshwaran, and Anders Skoogh. "Machine criticality based maintenance prioritization: Identifying productivity improvement potential." International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 67.4 (2018): 654-672. (Year: 2018). This paper includes multiple data sources from literature analysis, a web-based questionnaire survey across multiple small and large manufacturing companies and in-depth semi-structured interviews across large multi-national automobile manufactures. Additionally, simulation experimentation is used to evaluate the productivity potentials and validate the results. The primary results of this paper show the importance of having a system’s view on maintenance to improve system productivity and the need for data-driven decision support for maintenance prioritization.
Foreign Documents
EP-1783569-B1 -> Data Collection System. Fuji at ¶ [0001] notes that this present disclosure relates to a data collection system for collecting data concerning the operation of equipment, such as production machines that constitute a production line.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DERICK HOLZMACHER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7853. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM – 6:30 PM 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 Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-8853.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DERICK J HOLZMACHER/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625A
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights