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 .
In a Preliminary Amendment filed on October 30, 2024, the Abstract was amended.
Claims 1-10 are pending, of which claims 1 and 10 are independent claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for Application No. Japan 2022-134279 filed on August 25, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 30, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for lack of antecedent support or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 1, line 6, replace “the operation” with “an operation”.
Claim 1, line 7, replace “the allocation” with “an allocation”.
Claim 1, line 12, replace “the case” with “a case”.
Claim 1, line 15, replace “the case” with “a case”.
Claim 2, lines 9-10, replace “in which it is predicted that the productivity will not satisfy the predetermined standard” with “, in which it is predicted that the productivity will not satisfy the predetermined standard,”.
Claim 4, line 4, replace “the delivery” with “a delivery”.
Claim 5, line 4, replace “the operation” with “an operation”.
Claim 6, line 6, replace “is started” with “has started”.
Claim 10, line 6, replace “the operation” with “an operation”.
Claim 10, line 13, replace “the case” with “a case”.
Claim 10, line 16, replace “the case” with “a case”.
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites, in part “for each combination of the article of the product and the process”. However, neither claim 1 nor claim 2 provide antecedent support for “the article” and the recitations of claim 3 are confusing to discern the intended meaning of “the article”. It is unclear if the intent is for “the article” to refer to a particular product and to a particular process for the particular product. The Office notes that the description corresponding to FIGS. 4A-4C refer to an article identifier of a particular product, an article name of the particular product, and a corresponding process associated with the particular product. If such is the case, it is recommended that claim 3 be amended to clarify the recitations. Claim 3 also recites “the earliest time among the calculated times”. However, neither claims 1 and 2 introduce an earliest time. If the intent was “the earliest time” to be “an earliest time”, it is recommended that the claim be further amended. For purposes of examination, the recitation will be construed as “an earliest time”.
Appropriate correction through claim amendment is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Borriello et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2025/0004459 A1) (“Borriello”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Borriello teaches:
A progress management system comprising: a control unit; and a storage unit, Borriello: Paragraph [0021] (“…a system, e.g. a computing system, configured for automatically monitoring operations of a production line in function of a takt time, the system comprising: a graphical user interface (GUI) (211) comprising a display area and a user interaction area; a processing unit (210) configured for acquiring and processing data from equipment of said production line; a memory;…”)
wherein the storage unit holds a production plan for one or more products, the production plan includes, for an operation of each process for producing each of the products, an allocation of the operation of the process to equipment, a scheduled start time for the operation of the process, and a scheduled end time for the operation of the process, Borriello: Paragraph [0009] (“The present invention proposes indeed a method for automatically monitoring operations of a production line in function of a takt time, the method comprising the following steps:”) Borriello: Paragraph [0010] (“a) receiving or acquiring a takt time for the production of a product by said production line;”) Borriello: Paragraph [0011] (“b) receiving or acquiring a set of successive operations to be performed on said product by one or several equipment of the production line, wherein each operation is characterized by a duration defined in function of the takt time. In particular, the total duration (i.e. the sum of the durations) of all operations performed by a same equipment is defined in function of said takt time, and is preferentially equal to said takt time. Preferentially, the system according to the invention automatically sets the duration of each operation performed by and/or in connection with an equipment of the production line in function of set takt time or of at least part of said operations;”) Borriello: Paragraph [0012] (“c) acquiring in real time and from said one or several equipment of the production line, a temporal progression or evolution of each of said successive operations; d) automatically determining from said temporal progression or evolution a predicted end of at least one, preferentially of each, of said successive operations for said one or several equipment;”) Borriello: Paragraph [0034] (“The width of each operation bar 33 shows the duration of the concerned operation with respect to the takt time defined for the equipment or machine, each extremity of each operation bar 33 being aligned with a temporal value comprised within said takt time bar 31, namely one of said extremities being aligned with a first temporal value indicating an expected start S1 of the operation and the other extremity being aligned with a second temporal value indicating said expected end E1 of the operation with respect to said takt time. Preferentially, the operation bar 33 of the first operation performed by the equipment or machine, e.g. operation 3A according to FIG. 3, has its extremity representing the start of said first operation aligned with one of the extremities of the takt time bar (i.e. start of the takt time), and the operation bar corresponding to the last operation performed by the machine or equipment has its extremity corresponding to the end of said last operation aligned with the other extremity of the takt time bar (i.e. end of the takt time).”)
the control unit predicts, on the basis of the production plan, productivity for the case in which the operation of the process is delayed, and Borriello: Paragraph [0012] (“c) acquiring in real time and from said one or several equipment of the production line, a temporal progression or evolution of each of said successive operations;
d) automatically determining from said temporal progression or evolution a predicted end of at least one, preferentially of each, of said successive operations for said one or several equipment;”) Borriello: Paragraph [0038] (“According to the present invention, the duration of each operation is defined in function of the takt time, as shown in FIG. 3 . This enables the system to automatically determine whether there will be a delay with respect to the defined and required takt time. In particular, the system might receive or acquire, for each operation, a set of successive steps that have to be performed and an average time for executing each of said successive steps in order to complete the operation.”) Borriello: Paragraph [0040] (“At step 104, the system automatically determines from said temporal progression or evolution a predicted end of at least one, preferentially of each, of said successive operations. For instance, knowing the step of the operation that is currently performed by an equipment, the current duration of this step and its average duration, the system may automatically determine a predicted end of the operation. According to another embodiment, the system may use artificial intelligence for predicting the end of the operation or of all remaining operations. For instance, and as illustrated in FIG. 3 , the system may acquire the effective starting time of the operation 3B, its current duration as shown by the cursor 310, and determines its predicted end from the duration of each remaining steps of the operation 3B that have to be executed for completing operation 3B.”) Borriello: Paragraph [0041] (“At step 105, the system 220 automatically determines whether at least one of said predicted ends exceeds an expected end of at least one of said operations. For this purpose, it can be configured for automatically comparing the expected end to the predicted end and determining their difference. In particular, it can compare said difference to a predefined temporal threshold, wherein such a threshold might be predefined for each operation and acquired by the system according to the invention, for instance from a database of a MES system.”)
on the basis of the delay amount of the operation of the process for the case in which it is predicted that the productivity will not satisfy a predetermined standard, the control unit generates a changing proposal for the production plan and a switching timing to the changing proposal for the production plan such that the productivity satisfies the predetermined standard when the delay of the delay amount occurs in the operation of the process. Borriello: Paragraph [0012] [As described above.] Borriello: Paragraph [0013] (“d) automatically determining from said temporal progression or evolution a predicted end of at least one, preferentially of each, of said successive operations for said one or several equipment;”) Borriello: Paragraph [0014] (“e) automatically determining whether at least one of said predicted end exceeds an expected end of said operation;”) Borriello: Paragraph [0015] (“f) in the affirmative, automatically triggering or activating a measure aiming to reduce a temporal difference between the predicted end and the expected end. Said measure can be configured for instance for keeping the production rate equal to said takt time”) Borriello: Paragraph [0042] (“At step 106, if required (i.e. if at least one of said predicted ends of an operation exceeds its expected end) the system 220 automatically triggers or activates a measure aiming to reduce the temporal difference between the predicted end and the expected end. Preferentially, said measure is automatically triggered or activated when the temporal difference between the predicted end of the operation and the expected end is greater than said predefined temporal threshold.”) Borriello: Paragraph [0043] (“Said measure may comprise for instance … automatically adapting a production speed of one of said equipment 215, 216, 217, for instance in order to increase its takt time in order to keep the average production rate equal to the takt time defined for the production line, and/or automatically modifying a scheduled production plan of the production line 200 for increasing the production rate of the production line 200.”) [The exceeding of the expected end reads on “not satisfy a predetermined standard”. The time in which at least one of said predicted ends of an operation exceeds its expected end reads on “a switching timing”.]
Regarding claim 5, Borriello teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. Borriello further teaches:
The progress management system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit predicts that the productivity will not satisfy the predetermined standard when it is predicted that the operation rate of the equipment will become lower than the predetermined standard. Borriello: Paragraph [0005] (“… the production rate (i.e. number of units that are produced per unit of time, e.g. per hour or day or week) is set to match a rate fixed by the customer demand. The takt time reflects the rate of production of the production line to match the demand. The takt time is should ideally match the customer demand, that is the production line shall have the capacity to satisfy this production rate.”) Borriello: Paragraph [0033] (“Equipment 216 are installed in parallel after equipment 215 in order to not decrease the output rate of equipment 215. Indeed, each 2 hours, equipment 215 outputs a product modified according to operation 211, and the outputted products are then distributed alternately to one of the equipment 216, i.e. if a first outputted product of equipment 215 is provided as input to one of the equipment 216, the next product outputted by equipment 215 will be provided as input to the other equipment 216. By this way, the production rate is not impacted by the lower production rate of equipment 216 which results from the operation 212 lasting temporally longer compared to the other operations 211 and 213. Preferentially, the duration of an operation that is automatic and whose duration is flexible, i.e. can be increased or decreased within a predefined time gap and notably without decreasing the quality of said operation, might be automatically determined by the system according to the invention in order to match the takt time.”)
Regarding claim 6, Borriello teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 6 depends. Borriello further teaches:
The progress management system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit generates the changing proposal for the production plan and the switching timing to the changing proposal for the production plan before the operation of the process based on the production plan is started. Borriello: Paragraphs [0009]-[0015] [As described in claim 1.] [The operations to be performed read on “before the operation of the process based on the production plan is started”.]
Regarding independent claim 10, the claim recites similar limitations as corresponding independent claim 1 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
It is noted that any citations to specific paragraphs or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borriello in view of Sakai (US Patent Publication No. 2004/0193291 A1) (“Sakai”).
Regarding claim 4, Borriello teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. Borriello does not expressly teach the features of claim 4. However, Sakai describes a production management method. Sakai teaches:
The progress management system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit predicts that the productivity will not satisfy the predetermined standard when it is predicted that the delivery date of any one of the products will be delayed. Sakai: Paragraph [0060] (“It is important to always manage a production on the basis of a delay predicted from the latest scheduled shipping date in which the process, term of work, operating states and capabilities of each manufacturing apparatus, and the like are considered and the delivery date. Specifically, a corrected delivery date prediction of lot LOT04 is calculated on the basis of production information in the present and subsequent processes and the presence or absence of a delay is determined. In such a manner, a delay or the possibility of a delay is detected, the main cause of the delay is analyzed, and the expedite instruction including a countermeasure to the cause is outputted, thereby enabling a delay to be effectively made up for.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Borriello and Sakai before them, for the control unit to predict that the productivity will not satisfy the predetermined standard when it is predicted that the delivery date of any one of the products will be delayed because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on predicting delivery dates.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because to provide a production management method capable of accurately detecting a product in a production process, which is behind schedule and prevent a product in a production process from being shipped later than a delivery date from various viewpoints. Sakai Paragraphs [0024] and [0028]
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borriello in view of Kimura (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0053124 A1) (“Kimura”).
Regarding claim 7, Borriello teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. Borriello further teaches:
The progress management system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit acquires the result of the operation of each of the processes after the operation of the process based on the production plan is started, and Borriello: Paragraphs [0009]-[0011] [As described in claim 1.]
Borriello does not expressly teach that when detecting, on the basis of the acquired result and the production plan, the delay of the operation of any one of the processes, the control unit outputs an instruction to stop the preparation of the operation of the process started after that point in time. However, Kimura describes a production management system. Kimura teaches:
when detecting, on the basis of the acquired result and the production plan, the delay of the operation of any one of the processes, the control unit outputs an instruction to stop the preparation of the operation of the process started after that point in time. Kimura: Paragraph [0084] (“The production state information generator 111 compares the reference pulse interval 122 and the pulse interval of the detection signal, thereby determining which of the production state of operation, delay and stop the manufacturing lines L1 and L2 are in. In an example, the production state information generator 111 is capable of determining that, (1) in the case where the pulse interval of the detection signal is longer than the reference pulse interval for determination as being in stop state, the manufacturing lines L1 and L2 are stopped; ... The production management apparatus 10 generates, as the production state information indicating the determined production state, the information for display including character information of operation, delay and stop, and different pieces of color information respectively associated with operation, delay and stop.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Borriello and Kimura before them, when detecting, on the basis of the acquired result and the production plan, the delay of the operation of any one of the processes, the control unit outputs an instruction to stop the preparation of the operation of the process started after that point in time because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on predicting delays.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to allow a simple apparatus to manage the production state and the production efficiency of the manufacturing line. Kimura Paragraphs [0007] and [0017]
It is noted that any citations to specific paragraphs or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 is found to be allowable over the prior art of record and would be considered allowable, pending the indefiniteness rejection of claim 3.
While the prior art shows he simulation of the computer-modelled part included a computer performing the following: accessing, by the computer, the computer-modelled part representing the physical part to be formed using the additive manufacturing process; populating, by the computer, first nodes within a first region of the computer- modelled part with temperature values, such that each of the first nodes has a corresponding temperature value, the first region of the computer-modelled part having a first density of the first nodes, the first region of the computer-modelled part being proximal a surface of the computer-modelled part at which material is added to the computer-modelled part during a simulation of the additive manufacturing process (see Borriello et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2025/0004459 A1); Kimura (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0053124 A1); Gukal (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0353491 A1); Hong (US Patent Publication No. 20110/0191139 A1); Sakai (US Patent Publication No. 2004/0193291 A1)) the prior art, individually or combined, does not teach or suggest “the control unit generates the changing proposal changing at least one of the allocation to the equipment or the scheduled start time of, among the operations of the processes included in the production plan, at least one of the operations of the processes in which the scheduled start time is later than the scheduled end time of the operation of the process for the case in which the delay in which it is predicted that the productivity will not satisfy the predetermined standard occurs,” as recited in claim 2; “the storage unit further holds, for each combination of the article of the product and the process, a production preparation manhour that is a manhour necessary for preparation starting the operation of the process, and the control unit calculates a time starting preparation on the basis of the production preparation manhour for the operation of each of the processes changed in the changing proposal, and generates, as the switching timing, the earliest time among the calculated times”, as recited in claim 3; “the control unit outputs the instruction of the operation of the process based on the changing proposal when the switching timing to the changing proposal is reached before the operation of the process in which the delay is detected is ended”, as recited in claim 8; and “the production control unit controls the equipment so as to execute the operation of the process based on the changing proposal when the switching timing to the changing proposal is reached before the operation of the process in which the delay is detected is ended”, as recited in claim 9. It is this concept that defines the present application over the prior art of record.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 2011/0191139 A1 to Hong describes in Paragraph [0029] (“The information system 250 of chip manufacturer B is used to manage orders, manufacturing planning, manufacturing, material planning, and inventory of chips manufactured by chip manufacturer B. In the example in FIG. 2, system 250 has an order management module 251, a manufacturing planning system 253, a material management module 254, a manufacturing information module 255, and an inventory module 257. The order management module 251 records the amounts, the types, and the delivery dates of chips ordered by customers. The order information is fed to the manufacturing planning system 253, which determines the manufacturing schedule based on a number of factors, including the fab capacity.”)
Gukal (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0353491A1) describes that a start time can be adjusted to the minimum time stamp of the connection attempts in the cluster. As another example, the end time can be adjusted to a maximum time stamp of the connection attempts in the cluster. As another example, the duration between connection attempts can be adjusted to an updated scan end time minus an updated scan start time divided by one less than the number of connection attempts in the cluster. In various implementations, a cluster's definition can be updated whenever a new connection attempt is added to the cluster, or at some other time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M. CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights