DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claim
This action is in response to application filed on 17 of June 2026.
Claims 1 and 5-7 have been amended.
Claims 2-4 and 8 have been cancelled.
Claims 9-11 have been added.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 9-11 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 6 and cancellation of claim 3 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 112 is withdrawn.
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that based on the disclosure from the specification, the steps 2, 5, and 6 in claim 1should be interpreted as that a plurality of change contents each comprising changes to one or more of a worker and a work content are received by the processor from an administrator terminal, the plurality of recovery plans are output by the processor to the administrator terminal, and a selection of one of the plurality of output recovery plans is received by the processor form the administrator terminal, and the “receive” and “output” process is not a mental process or organizing human activity, as it can be implemented by the processor and the administrator terminal, thus the steps 2, 5, and 6 are additional elements. Accordingly, applicant respectfully submits that the amended claim1 does not merely recite an abstract idea. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, while the specification may help illuminate the true focus of a claim, when analyzing patent eligibility, reliance on the specification must always yield to the claim language in identifying that focus." Id. at 766; see also Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1363 ("Our focus is on the claims, as informed by the specification."). At bottom, we must "articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful." Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, the invention remains an observation (i.e. a mental process) of determining the recommendation information corresponding to the user identifier based on skills and a mathematical calculation (i.e. a mathematical concept) of determining a scored value via a scoring model merely applied by generic computer components disclosed at a high level of generality and do not satisfy the Alice Test. Second, under prong one of the two prong test in the 2019 Guidance, claim 1 recites abstract ideas, i.e., certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. detecting insufficient worker and determine a recovery plan selected for the day), mathematical calculations (e.g. simulate multiple recovery plans and calculate work efficiency), and mental processes (e.g. detecting insufficient worker, generating a recovery plan, determine a recovery plan selected for the day); and, under prong two, additional elements in claim 1 do not “apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” (See 2019 Guidance at 54). As such, under step one of the Alice framework, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, and the examiner moves to step two. Taking the claim elements separately, the functions performed in claim 1 by the generic processor, memory, and administrator device (i.e. a device) to receive data, analyze data, calculate results, and output data are purely conventional. Receiving data, analyzing data, calculating results, and outputting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions previously known to the industry. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (The claims “do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept. . . .”). Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Lastly, receiving data and outputting a result are deemed insignificant extra solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Applicant asserts that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application since the invention improves the functioning of the warehouse management system itself. The examiner respectfully disagrees. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.
Applicant asserts that the invention is not a routine or conventional in the field. The prior art of record does not disclose this integrated workflow. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018). Simply reciting specific limitations that narrow the abstract idea does not make an abstract idea non-abstract. 79 Fed. Reg. 74631; buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (2014); see SAP America at p. 12.
35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot in light of newly amended language.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 9-11 are objected to as being currently rejected as below, but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the action. The prior art of record most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention includes 森 幸宏 (JP 7526935B2), Won (KR 20190143595A), Genki (JP 2021160070A ), and Rorro et. al. (US 20220207452).
幸宏 teaches a work management support method and a work management support service providing method that use an information processing device to perform processing to support the management of a production site that produces a specified end product through multiple tasks.
Won teaches a parallel schedule management method performed by a computer-implemented parallel schedule management system according to an embodiment may include: searching for parallel tasks associated with a project from a work breakdown structure (WBS); Performing a simulation on the searched concurrent tasks; Evaluating a plan associated with the concurrent task as a simulation of the concurrent task; And re-establishing a work division structure diagram for reducing costs or schedules based on a result of evaluating a plan associated with the concurrent tasks.
Genki teaches a robot management device in the workplace and a robot work information acquisition unit that acquires robot work information indicating feasible work that can be performed by a robot arranged in the workplace, and an unallocated work information acquisition unit that acquires the unallocated work information indicating the unallocated work and the amount of the unallocated work, and the unallocated work that are included in the feasible work and the amount of the unallocated work.
Rorro teaches a warehouse coordination system that provides data for a plan creation user interface for a warehouse process. The warehouse coordination system receives user input that indicates a sequence of tasks to be performed over a shift for the warehouse process, user input that indicates resources to be applied to the tasks, and a simulation command to perform a simulation of the tasks. In response to receiving the simulation command, the warehouse coordination system performs the simulation of the tasks according to the user input. The warehouse coordination system provides simulation output data based on the simulation of the tasks, and receives a confirmation command to confirm the simulation output data.
None of the above prior art explicitly teaches “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the program to output all recovery plans that complete a work process of the entire warehouse on the day among the plurality of recovery plans-simulated”, or “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the program to notify the administrator terminal a work content scheduled after a following day can be moved forward if a work completion time of the recovery plan selected is scheduled to be earlier than an ordinarily set work completion time on the day”, or “maintaining an initial assignment of work content in the morning except for the insufficient worker, and separately assigning the work content of the insufficient worker to another worker in the afternoon”, or “when actual shipping orders significantly exceed predicted shipping orders, canceling a work content for shipping scheduled on a following day and changing to a work content for shipping on a current day” or “wherein the work efficiency comprises a total required time a cut time margin, a margin rate and an excess person-hour” and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 5-6 and 9-11 are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 5-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception.
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “a processor; and a memory storing a program; wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to: detect an insufficient worker on a day of warehouse work based on shift data acquired from a shift management system and identify a work content assigned to the detected insufficient worker; receive, from an administrator terminal, a plurality of change contents each comprising changes to one or more of a worker and a work content; generate a plurality of recovery plans based on the plurality of change contents, respectively, each of the plurality of recovery plans reflecting changes to one or more of a worker and a work content with respect to a previously generated work plan on the day; simultaneously simulate the plurality of recovery plans in parallel, and calculate work efficiency of an entire work on the day based on each of the plurality of recovery plans; output the plurality of recovery plans to the administrator terminal in descending order of work efficiency of the entire work on the day; receive a selection of one of the plurality of recovery plans from the administrator terminal; and determine a recovery plan selected as the work plan on the day”. Claim 7 discloses similar limitations as Claim 1, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1 and 7 are directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” in particular “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” and “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, and “Mathematical Concepts” in particular “mathematical calculations” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5-6 and 9-11 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1 and 7 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1 and 7 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element(s) italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1 and 7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least in ¶64-68 “The computer 10 may be implemented with a single computer or multiple computers composing a cloud computer. The cloud computer herein may use any computer in a scalable manner to perform a specific function or may include multiple functional modules to realize a certain system, allowing for the free combination of those functions. The computer 10 includes a control unit provided with a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), a RAM (Random Access Memory), a ROM (Read Only Memory), etc. The computer 10 also includes a communication unit provided with a device for enabling communication with other terminals or devices. The computer 10 also include a change reception unit 11 that receives change of a worker and a work content. The computer 10 includes a storage unit provided with a data storage unit such as a hard disk, a semiconductor memory, a storage medium, or a memory card. The computer 10 includes a processing unit provided with various devices that execute different processes, a generation unit 12 that generates a recovery plan, and a simulator 13 that simulates the recovery plan and calculates the work efficiency. [0068] In the computer 10, the control unit realizes a shipping order acquisition module, a work plan acquisition module, a shift data acquisition module, an insufficient worker notification module, a change reception module, a recovery plan output module, a selection reception module, and an accelerable work notification module by reading a predetermined program in cooperation with the communication unit”.
Claims 5-6 and 9-11 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of JP 7526935B2 to 森 幸宏 (hereinafter referred to as “森 幸宏”), in view of KR 20190143595A to Won (hereinafter referred to as “Won”), in further view of JP 2021160070A to Genki (hereinafter referred to as “Genki”).
(A) As per Claims 1 and 7:
森 幸宏 expressly discloses:
a processor; and a memory storing a program; wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to: (森 幸宏 Page 2 in addition, the information processing device of the present invention is an information processing device that supports management operations of a production base that produces a specified end product through a plurality of operations, and is equipped with a processor and a memory in which a program executed by the processor is stored, and the processor acquires a production plan and a work plan for the end product).
detect an insufficient worker on a day of warehouse work based on shift data acquired from a shift management system and identify a work content assigned to the detected insufficient worker; (森 幸宏 Page 6 now, there may be sudden changes on the day in terms of workers' work plans (work shifts) or production plans for deliverables (e.g. order quantities). For example, the order quantity may change on the day due to factors such as the weather. There may also be delays in the progress of work due to various causes. Also, workers may be absent on the day. In this case, if work is continued according to the current work plan, the production of the deliverables will not be in time for the delivery date).
receive, from an administrator terminal, a plurality of change contents each comprising changes to one or more of a worker and a work content; (森 幸宏 Page 6 in this embodiment, order record information, which includes information such as changes in order quantities, work record information, which includes information such as the progress of work, and work record information, which includes information such as worker absences, are obtained as current status information, and proposed changes to the work process plan and personnel deployment plan included in the current work plan are created based on the current status information).
generate a plurality of recovery plans based on the plurality of change contents, respectively, each of the plurality of recovery plans reflecting changes to one or more of a worker and a work content with respect to a previously generated work plan on the day; (森 幸宏 Page 6 as shown in FIG. 6, server 1 creates a work process plan. This work process plan is created based on the production plan of the deliverable obtained from server 11 of the production management system. This work process plan includes a schedule for performing each task required to produce the deliverable (e.g., item A), i.e., information on the time each task is to be performed. For each task, a work time and number of workers according to the standard labor hours are set…For example, if there is an order for 300 units of work A related to the production of item A's deliverables, and three workers are available to work on work A based on the work shift, and the standard man-hours for work A are six man-hours, then two hours of work time will be required for work A. On the other hand, if there are two workers available to work on work A, three hours of work time will be required for work A. However, if three hours of work time cannot be secured for work A, it is possible to arrange personnel so that two people work on work A for two hours and one person works on work A for one hour before moving on to another task).
receive a selection of one of the plurality of recovery plans from the administrator terminal; determine a recovery plan selected as the work plan on the day; (森 幸宏 Pages 3-4 the processor performs an output process to inquire of the manager about whether or not to adopt the improvement plan, and when the manager inputs an operation to adopt the improvement plan, the processor changes the work plan based on the improvement plan. According to this, if the manager decides to adopt an improvement proposal, changes to the work plan will be made based on the improvement proposal. This makes it possible to avoid making unnecessary changes to the work plan).
Although 森 幸宏 teaches a work management support method and a work management support service providing method that use an information processing device to perform processing to support the management of a production site that produces a specified end product through multiple tasks, it doesn’t expressly disclose running multiple simulation scenarios simultaneously in order to calculate work efficiency, however Won teaches:
simultaneously simulate the plurality of recovery plans in parallel, and calculate work efficiency of an entire work on the day based on each of the plurality of recovery plans; (Won Page 4 the concurrent schedule management system 100 can reconstruct the WBS with the shortest schedule and minimum cost by finding the concurrent tasks in the WBS and evaluating the cost of adding / reducing the parallel plan through simulation. have. In detail, the concurrent schedule management system 100 may provide a user interface through a simultaneous parallel optimization program. For example, you can import work partitioning schemes through a concurrent optimization program. The parallel schedule management system 100 may visualize the process associated with the project as the work division structure diagram related to the project is interlocked with the project manager system, and perform the parallelism simulation. The concurrent schedule management system 100 may evaluate the process as the concurrent parallel simulation is performed. For example, a concurrent scheduling system can search for critical paths, improve rework cost, calculate overlap cost, and calculate total cost as a concurrent parallel simulation).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified 森 幸宏’s system that gathers work progress information and work record information and run concurrent schedule management system 100 can reconstruct the WBS with the shortest schedule and minimum cost Won as both are analogous art which teaches the creation of a work plan based on current status information, and proposed changes to the work process plan and personnel deployment plan included in the current work plan are created based on the current status information as taught in 森 幸宏 and have the concurrent scheduling system search for critical paths, improve rework cost, calculate overlap cost, and calculate total cost as a concurrent parallel simulation as taught in Won.
Although 森 幸宏 in view of Won teaches a work management support method and a work management support service providing method that use an information processing device to perform processing to support the management of a production site that produces a specified end product through multiple tasks, it doesn’t expressly disclose outputting several recovery plans in descending order, however Genki teaches:
output the plurality of recovery plans to the administrator terminal in descending order of work efficiency of the entire work on the day; (Genki Page 9 the unallocated work information acquisition unit 113 can improve the work efficiency and the sales efficiency by specifying the unallocated work for changing the storage position of the article or the display position of the article based on the settlement information. A plurality of unallocated works in descending order of priority, and performs unallocated work in which the total value in descending order of priority is equal to or less than the amount of work that can be executed by the robot 2. Extract as robot allocation work. Further, the extraction unit 114 may extract the robot allocation work based on the deadline in addition to the quantity and priority. As a result, the extraction unit 114 can extract the robot allocation work in descending order of priority within the range of the amount of work that can be executed by the robot 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified 森 幸宏 in view of Won’s system that gathers work progress information and have the unallocated work information acquisition unit improve the work efficiency and the sales efficiency by specifying the unallocated works for changing the storage position of the article or the display position of the article based on the settlement information Genki as both are analogous art which teaches the creation of a work plan based on current status information, and proposed changes to the work process plan and personnel deployment plan included in the current work plan are created based on the current status information as taught in 森 幸宏 in view of Won and have the extraction unit extract the robot allocation works in descending order of priority within the range of the amount of work that can be executed by the robot 2 as taught in Genki.
森 幸宏 teaches work management support method in Page 4.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
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).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 8/8/2026
Prosecution Insights