DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to amendments filed March 5th, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 11-13 have been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 03/05/26, with respect to claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 12/16/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 03/05/26, with respect to claims 1-7 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation of 12/16/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 03/05/26, with respect to claim 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of 12/16/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 filed 03/05/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 12-14 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Beginning on page 12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues, citing paragraphs [0016] and [0019] of the as-filed Specification that “Claim 1 and 11-13 (and claims depending therefrom) are patent-eligible because it recites a specific, computer-implemented solution to a technical problem encountered when navigating and displaying large, branched manufacturing history data structures on an electronic display.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the argued “challenging to accurately grasp” the manufacturing process” is not a technical problem as the ability of a user to follow and accurately grasp manufacturing process steps is not technical in nature. Per MPEP 2106.05(a) “An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.” Examiner asserts that the identified Specification problem of accurately grasping manufacturing process steps is not a technical problem. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on page 12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues, citing paragraphs [0086]-[0088] of the Specification, “Claims 1 and 11-13 expressly identify the technical issue created by branching during downstream navigation – i.e., “different process paths [being] selectable during downstream transition,” which “creat[es] a possibility for a user to inadvertently transition to a process path different from a path leading to the displayed upstream process information.” Examiner begins by citing MPEP 2106.05(a) “After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.” Therefore, it is not that the argued claims identify the technical issue but reflect the disclosed improvement in technology. However, as stated above, Examiner asserts that the claims do not disclose an improvement in technology as the identified technical problem to overcome is not technical. The argued creation of a possibility of a user to inadvertently transition to an incorrect process path is not a technical problem but a potential human error. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on page 13 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “a. Not directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One)”. Specifically, Applicant argues “the claims recite a particular mechanism for controlling downstream navigation in a branched process structure” that “is a specific user-interface control technique for navigating a branched dataset”. Examiner begins by asserting that the identified displaying and storing limitations of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Further, Examiner asserts that the high-level recitation of the control and prevention of presentation of manufacturing process steps is a judgment and evaluation of the human mind. The argued “specific user-interface” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). Therefore, the claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On page 13 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “b. Integrated into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two)”. Specifically, Applicant argues that the independent claims “apply the recited operations in a manner that improved the functioning and operation of the display/navigation system when interacting with a large, branched manufacturing history.” Citing paragraphs [0089]-[0091] of the as-filed Specification, Applicant argues that the transition-history control prevents improper branch navigation. However, as argued above, the high-level recitation of the control and prevention of presentation of manufacturing process steps is a judgment and evaluation of the human mind. Further citing paragraphs [0064] and [0078] of the Specification, Applicant argues the performance benefits associated with the disclosed architecture noting “it is possible to shorten a time required for the display” and that “the display of the process information can be speeded up.” Examiner asserts that while these argued performance benefits are “possible” and “can” occur, per cited MPEP 2106.05(a) “the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Therefore, the specification, and subsequent claims, would need to describe the displays’ ability to either shorten the display of manufacturing process steps or speed up the display of manufacturing process steps. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On page 14 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “c. Inventive concept (Step 2B)”. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea by requiring “(1) a branched process structure forming "multiple selectable process paths," (2) an ordered "transition history" capturing "a series of ... sequentially displayed" process information, and (3) downstream return behavior that filters the display based on that history and "prevent[s] display" of branch pieces "not recorded in the transition history," "thereby preventing selection of a different branch." Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the requirement of a branched process structure and ordered transition history within the claims merely describes the displaying of the manufacturing history information within a display to a user which would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further the downstream return behavior as claimed is recited with a high level of generality such that the control and prevention of display of branch pieces is a judgment and evaluation of the human mind. The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim(s) stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 103 filed 03/05/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 14-18 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose the amended claim limitations. Specifically, on page 17 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “the cited references do not explicitly teach "a manufacturing history information" and "a transition history" as defined by amended Claim 1, and using such "manufacturing history information" and "transition history" with respect to the feature(s) "in response to a second user operation to return the process information displayed on the display to the downstream side of the process, controlling the display to display a specific piece of the process information that is recorded in the transition history stored in the memory, while preventing display of other pieces of process information located at a branch on the downstream side that are not recorded in the transition history thereby preventing selection of a different branch of the manufacturing history that is not part of the route previously displayed to the user." Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the cited completed processing steps tracking of Morris is analogous to the manufacturing and transition history as argued above and presented in the amended claims. As cited below, Morris controls the display of the user interface based on a set sequence of processing steps to prevent a user to view other steps not included in the preset sequence. This is analogous to the amended claim limitations. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 18, filed 03/05/26, with respect to claims 1, 11, 12, and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection of 12/16/25 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: independent claims 1, 11, 12, and 13 recite within the final limitation "the route previously displayed" which lacks antecedent basis. Dependent claims 2 and 4-10 are objected due to their dependency from the independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation beginning “a total amount of carbon dioxide” recites “a latest step” which is a typographical error that should recite “the latest step”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
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, machine, 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. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (device), 11 (system), 12 (method), 13 (non-transitory computer readable medium) and dependent claims 2 and 4-10, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e. machine), claim 11 is directed to a system (i.e. machine), claim 12 is directed to a method (i.e. process), and claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite manufacturing history display method comprising: reading attachment information attached to a product, the attachment information being associated with manufacturing history information of the product; acquiring the manufacturing history information associated with the attachment information from a server based on the reading of the attachment information; and displaying the manufacturing history information on a display based on the acquiring, wherein the manufacturing history information is information in which multiple pieces of process information are stored in time series, the multiple pieces of the process information indicating steps of a process related to manufacture of the product, the manufacturing history information includes branching in the process such that at least one piece of process information corresponds to a plurality of upstream processes or a plurality of downstream processes, thereby forming multiple selectable process paths, and the branching of the process information causing different process paths to be selectable during downstream transition, creating a possibility for a user to inadvertently transition to a process path different from a path leading to the displayed upstream process information, and the displaying includes displaying one piece of the process information included in the manufacturing history information on the display, and transitioning the process information displayed on the display in a time series in response to a user operation, and the method further comprising: storing a transition history of the process information displayed on the display into the memory, the transition history including a series of the process information that are sequentially displayed in time series in response to the user operation; setting a piece of the process information corresponding to a latest step of the process as an initial display, the latest step being latest relative to a current step of the process; transitioning the process information from the initial display to an upstream side of the process from a downstream side of the process in response to a first user operation, while storing the process information displayed on the display during said transition as part of the transition history into the memory; and in response to a second user operation to return the process information displayed on the display to the downstream side of the process, controlling the display to display a specific piece of the process information that is recorded in the transition history stored in the memory, while preventing display of other pieces of process information located at a branch on the downstream side that are not recorded in the transition history thereby preventing selection of a different branch of the manufacturing history that is not part of the route previously displayed to the user (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are managing manufacturing history information of process information and transitioning the process information displayed on the display in a time series in response to user operation, which is commercial interaction in the form of sales activity as well as managing personal behavior. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are managing manufacturing history information of process information and transitioning the process information displayed on the display in a time series in response to user operation, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are managing manufacturing history information of process information; acquiring manufacturing history information associated with the attachment; transitioning the process information displayed on the display in a time series in response to user operation; setting a piece of the process information corresponding to a latest step of the process as an initial display; transitioning the process information from the initial display to an upstream side of the process from a downstream side of the process in response to a first user operation; and controlling the display to display a specific piece of the process information while preventing display of other pieces of the process information, which are observations, judgments, and evaluations of the human mind. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are managing manufacturing history information of process information and transitioning the process information displayed on the display in a time series in response to user operation, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, and 10 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining acquiring pieces of process information; the transition and return process information; setting a piece of process information; and the configuration of process information. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior in addition to mental process. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Dependent claims 6 and 9 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “acquiring, the manufacturing history information associated with the read attachment information; displaying the acquired manufacturing history information on a display; wherein the manufacturing history information is information in which multiple pieces of process information are stored in time series; display one piece of the process information included in the manufacturing history information on the display; storing a transition history of the process information displayed on the display into the memory, the transition history including a series of the process information that are sequentially displayed in time series in response to the user operation; while storing the process information displayed on the display during said transition as part of the transition history into the memory” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “An information processing device comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing computer program code configured to cause the at one processor to carry out; a server; a display; A manufacturing history display system comprising: a server; A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a manufacturing history display program comprising instructions configured to, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, and 10 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 5, 6-7, and 9 additionally recite “display, on the display, a degree of deviation between one piece of the process information being displayed on the display and the piece of the process information corresponding to the latest step”; “display an operation image on the display, the operation image configured to be operated for returning display on the display to the piece of the process information corresponding to the latest step”; “display at least one of the amount of carbon dioxide discharged in each step of the process, and a total amount of carbon dioxide discharged through the process up to a latest step”; “displays an operation image on the display based on displaying a piece of the process information related to transport on the display, the operation image configured to be operated for displaying an image indicating a transport route” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “display” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “An information processing device comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing computer program code configured to cause the at one processor to carry out; a server; a display; A manufacturing history display system comprising: a server; A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a manufacturing history display program comprising instructions configured to, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, device claims 1-2 & 4-10; method claim 12; system claim 11; and non-transitory computer readable medium claim 13 recite “An information processing device comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing computer program code configured to cause the at one processor to carry out; a server; a display; A manufacturing history display system comprising: a server; A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a manufacturing history display program comprising instructions configured to, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraph 0037 and Figures 1 & 3. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “acquiring, the manufacturing history information associated with the read attachment information; displaying the acquired manufacturing history information on a display; wherein the manufacturing history information is information in which multiple pieces of process information are stored in time series; display one piece of the process information included in the manufacturing history information on the display; storing a transition history of the process information displayed on the display into the memory, the transition history including a series of the process information that are sequentially displayed in time series in response to the user operation; while storing the process information displayed on the display during said transition as part of the transition history into the memory” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, and 10 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 5, 6-7, and 9 additionally recite “display, on the display, a degree of deviation between one piece of the process information being displayed on the display and the piece of the process information corresponding to the latest step”; “display an operation image on the display, the operation image configured to be operated for returning display on the display to the piece of the process information corresponding to the latest step”; “display at least one of the amount of carbon dioxide discharged in each step of the process, and a total amount of carbon dioxide discharged through the process up to a latest step”; “displays an operation image on the display based on displaying a piece of the process information related to transport on the display, the operation image configured to be operated for displaying an image indicating a transport route” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “display” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 (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.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mostyn (U.S 2021/0383405 A1) in view of Morris (U.S 2019/0286112 A1).
Claims 1, 11, 12, and 13
Regarding Claim 1, Mostyn discloses the following:
An information processing device comprising [see at least Paragraph 0050 for reference to a system for measuring environmental impact associated with goods; Paragraph 0099 for reference to the example of a computer device suitable for implementing the environmental impact evaluator; Figure 1 and related text regarding a schematic overview of a system for measuring environmental impact associated with goods; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 100 ‘computer device’]
at least one processor [see at least Paragraph 0099 for reference to an example computer device suitable for implementing the environmental impact evaluator wherein the computer device comprises a processor in the form of a CPU; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 1002 ‘CPU’]
a memory storing computer program code configured to cause the at least one processor to carry out [see at least Paragraph 0099 for reference to an example computer device suitable for implementing the environmental impact evaluator wherein the computer device comprises a memory; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 1006 ‘memory’]
read attachment information attached to a product, the attachment information being associated with manufacturing history information of the product [see at least Paragraph 0064 for reference to the environmental impact certificate is linked to a party, good, and/or status of a good; Paragraph 0091 for reference to the data extractor being configured to read new log entries (corresponding to newly received products) in the electronic ledger, copy the log entries into the temporary cache, and parse the log entries; Paragraph 0107 for reference to an identity of the product being logged by means of the electronic ledger associated with the entity; Paragraph 0107 for reference to logging the identity of the product may comprise scanning a physical identifier (e.g. a barcode or RFID tag) on or associated with the product , which is either used as an input to the electronic ledger or used to verify a transaction record; Paragraph 0108 for reference to the logged identity of the product is identified from the electronic ledger by means of the environmental impact value evaluator wherein the data extractor parses the log entries; Paragraph 0109 for reference to the environmental impact certificate for the product being identified and accessed; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 132 ‘data extractor’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 530 ‘Log identity of product’, item 540 ‘Identify product from ledger’, and item 550 ‘Access environmental impact certificate’]
acquiring, from a server, the manufacturing history information associated with the read attachment information [see at least Paragraph 0093 for reference to the environmental impact evaluator further comprises the certificate access module, which is configured to receive an environmental impact certificate from a further external (mutually accessible) database holding environmental impact certificates in respect of other entities in the supply chain for a product, or in respect of a plurality of supply chains; Paragraph 0109 for reference to the environmental impact certificate for the product from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module accessing the mutually accessibly certificate database; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 136 ‘certificate access module’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 550 ‘Access environmental impact certificate’]
wherein the manufacturing history information is information in which multiple pieces of process information are stored in time series, the multiple pieces of the process information indicating steps of a process related to manufacture of the product [see at least Paragraph 0064 for reference to the environmental impact certificate is transferable (and traceable) along with a good as it moves (or is modified) within a supply chain and cumulatively factors the environmental impact values associated with each step in the flow of goods; Paragraphs 0067-0072 for reference to the time series of each user being logged by the system; Figure 2 and related text regarding an example of a supply chain comprising multiple entities using a system for processing an environmental impact associated with a product]
While Mostyn discloses the limitations above, including a user interface comprising a display (see at least Figure 4 and related text regarding item 1016), it does not disclose displaying the manufacturing history information on a display, wherein the manufacturing history information includes branching in the process such that at least one piece of process information corresponds to a plurality of upstream processes or a plurality of downstream processes, thereby forming multiple selectable process paths, the branching of the process information causing different process paths to be selectable during downstream transition, creating a possibility for a user to inadvertently transition to a process path different from a path leading to the displayed upstream process information, and the at least one processor further configured to carry out: displaying one piece of the process information included in the manufacturing history information on the display, transitioning the process information displayed on the display in a time series in response to a user operation; storing a transition history of the process information displayed on the display into the memory, the transition history including a series of the process information that are sequentially displayed in time series in response to the user operation; setting a piece of the process information corresponding to a latest step of the process as an initial display, the latest step being latest relative to a current step of the process; transitioning the process information from the initial display to an upstream side of the process from a downstream side of the process in response to a first user operation, while storing the process information displayed on the display during said transition as part of the transition history into the memory; and in response to a second user operation to return the process information displayed on the display to the downstream side of the process, controlling the display to display a specific piece of the process information that is recorded in the transition history stored in the memory, while preventing display of other pieces of process information located at a branch on the downstream side that are not recorded in the transition history thereby preventing selection of a different branch of the manufacturing history that is not part of the route previously displayed to the user.
However, Morris discloses the following:
displaying the manufacturing history information on a display [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to the visual interface depicted on the electronic - ink display of the electronic tracking device can include a variety of elements to assist in tracking the status of an order, manufacturing process steps completed, and a manufacturing process step to be performed; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 202 ‘E-ink DISPLAY’; Figure 3 and related text regarding an example visual interface of an electronic tracking device; Figure 12 and related text regarding item 1208 ‘TRANSMIT A DISPLAY UPDATE FOR THE ELECTRONIC INK DISPLAY OF THE IDENTIFIED ELECTRONIC TRACKING DEVICE THROUGH AT LEAST ONE FO THE ONE OR MORE WIRELESS ACCESS POINTS BASED ON DETERMINING THAT THE OPERATION NOTIFICATION COMPRISES A TRANSITION FROM THE CURRENT MANUFACTURING PROCESS STEP TO A NEXT MANUFACTURING PROCESS STEP’]
wherein the manufacturing history information includes branching in the process such that at least one piece of process information corresponds to a plurality of upstream processes or a plurality of downstream processes, thereby forming multiple selectable process paths [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to the visual interface depicted on the electronic - ink display of the electronic tracking device can include a variety of elements to assist in tracking the status of an order, manufacturing process steps completed, and a manufacturing process step to be performed; Paragraph 0027 for reference to the visual interface can display multiple checkboxes with step descriptions indicative of whether manufacturing process steps have been completed or not; Paragraph 0033 for reference to sequence tables defining the processing sequence steps to produce each part number from the part number table; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 610 ‘sequence tables’]
the branching of the process information causing different process paths to be selectable during downstream transition, creating a possibility for a user to inadvertently transition to a process path different from a path leading to the displayed upstream process information [see at least Paragraph 0033 for reference to resource selection processing of the server of FIG . 1 can be used to set process parameters and outgoing information to the electronic tracking devices; Paragraph 0033 for reference to sequence tables defining the processing sequence steps to produce each part number from the part number table; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 602 ‘Resource Selection Processing’ including item 610 ‘sequence tables’]
displaying one piece of the process information included in the manufacturing history information on the display, and transitioning the process information displayed on the display in a time series in response to a user operation [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to the visual interface displaying a process step identifier, a last manufacturing process step, and at least one instruction for performing the current manufacturing process step; Paragraph 0038 for reference to the interactive user interface including command buttons to initiate a pause operation to stop accumulating time against the current manufacturing process step, a process split operation, a finish operation operable to stop accumulating time and updates to the electronic-ink display responsive to the transition; Paragraph 0044 for reference to server can also enforce a predetermined manufacturing process step sequence defined in the manufacturing system database to constrain successful data entry associated with the electronic tracking devices by the manufacturing system operator computer systems as the parts transition between the manufacturing work areas; Paragraph 0046 for reference to the transition from the current manufacturing process step to a next manufacturing process step]
the at least one processor further configured to carry out: displaying one piece of the process information included in the manufacturing history information on the display, transitioning the process information displayed on the display in a time series in response to a user operation [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to the visual interface displaying at least one instruction for performing the current manufacturing process step; Paragraph 0029 for reference to the server monitors for a starting event at the manufacturing system operator computer systems to determine whether a manufacturing process step has begun; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 316; Figure 5 and related text regarding the process flow of the manufacturing process step display; Figure 12 and related text regarding item 1204 ‘DETERMINE A CURRENT MANUFACTURING PROCESS STEP ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATION NOTIFICATION’]
storing a transition history of the process information displayed on the display into the memory, the transition history including a series of the process information that are sequentially displayed in time series in response to the user operation [see at least Paragraph 0022 for reference to the memory system including a manufacturing system database; Paragraph 0034 for reference to an event history table capturing observed events/actions, such as creating a work order, pausing a step, finishing a step, splitting off a step onto a new electronic tracking device, as well as administrator actions; Paragraph 0034 for reference to anytime a step is paused, finished, or split the action is tracked within the table; Figure 6 and related text regarding tables that can be incorporated within the manufacturing system database include item 622 ‘event history table’]
setting a piece of the process information corresponding to a latest step of the process as an initial display, the latest step being latest relative to a current step of the process [see at least Paragraph 0029 for reference to the server monitors for a starting event at the manufacturing system operator computer systems to determine whether a manufacturing process step has begun; Paragraph 0030 for reference to the server determines a next manufacturing process step to be performed based on predefined process sequence data in the manufacturing system database and writes the associated data to a second instance of the electronic tracking device to travel with the split parts to the next manufacturing process step; Paragraph 0043 for reference to the server updates at least one entry in a manufacturing system database based on receiving an operation notification from one of a plurality of manufacturing system operator computer systems; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 510 ‘Step Begun?’ and 514 ‘Process Split?’]
transitioning the process information from the initial display to an upstream side of the process from a downstream side of the process in response to a first user operation, while storing the process information displayed on the display during said transition as part of the transition history into the memory [see at least Paragraph 0030 for reference to the server determines a next manufacturing process step to be performed based on predefined process sequence data in the manufacturing system database and writes the associated data to a second instance of the electronic tracking device to travel with the split parts to the next manufacturing process step; Paragraph 0031 for reference to the completion time being recorded in the manufacturing system database; Paragraph 0046 for reference to the transition from the current manufacturing process step to a next manufacturing process step; Figure 5 and related text regarding the process flow of the manufacturing process step display including item 520 ‘RECORD THE COMPLETION TIME FOR THE STEP AND CALCULATE THE STEP DURATION’]
in response to a second user operation to return the process information displayed on the display to the downstream side of the process, controlling the display to display a specific piece of the process information that is recorded in the transition history stored in the memory, while preventing display of other pieces of process information located at a branch on the downstream side that are not recorded in the transition history thereby preventing selection of a different branch of the manufacturing history that is not part of the route previously displayed to the user [see at least Paragraph 0031 for reference to the system determining if the current manufacturing process step is not yet completed at block and a pause event is detected at one of the manufacturing system operator computer systems, then at block, the pause time is recorded in the manufacturing system database, and the process flow returns to block waiting to begin/resume; Paragraph 0042 for reference to the administrative computing system defining the number of values within the manufacturing system database such as a predetermined manufacturing process steps sequence; Paragraph 0044 for reference to the server can also enforce a predetermined manufacturing process step sequence defined in the manufacturing system database to constrain successful data entry associated with the electronic tracking devices by the manufacturing system operator computer systems as the parts transition between the manufacturing work areas; Figure 5 and related text regarding the process flow of the manufacturing process step display]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Mostyn to include the display of manufacturing steps and transition of Morris. Thus, inadvertent skipping of a manufacturing process step can be avoided by enforcing process step sequential order, as stated by Morris (Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claims 11-13, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 11, Mostyn teaches a manufacturing history display system comprising: a server configured to store manufacturing history information in which multiple pieces of process information are stored in time series, the multiple pieces of the process information indicating steps of a process related to manufacture of a product [Paragraph 0050, 0095, Figure 1, & Figure 3 item 320]. Regarding claim 12, Mostyn teaches a manufacturing history display method [Paragraph 0105 & Figure 5]. Regarding claim 13, Mostyn teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a manufacturing history display program comprising instructions configured to, when executed by a computer [Paragraph 0030 & 0103]. Therefore, claims 11-13 are rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Mostyn & Morris.
Claim 2
While the combination of Mostyn and Morris disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 2, Mostyn discloses the following:
the at least one processor further configured to carry out acquiring pieces of the process information from the server [see at least Paragraph 0064 for reference to the environmental impact certificate is transferable (and traceable) along with a good as it moves (or is modified) within a supply chain and cumulatively factors the environmental impact values associated with each step in the flow of goods; Paragraph 0109 for reference to the environmental impact certificate for the product from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module accessing the mutually accessibly certificate database; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 136 ‘certificate access module’]
While Mostyn discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose the pieces of the process information corresponding to steps preceding and succeeding a step of one piece of the process information being displayed on the display.
However, Morris discloses the following:
the pieces of the process information corresponding to steps preceding and succeeding a step of one piece of the process information being displayed on the display [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to the visual interface depicted on the electronic - ink display of the electronic tracking device can include a variety of elements to assist in tracking the status of an order, manufacturing process steps completed, and a manufacturing process step to be performed; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 202 ‘E-ink DISPLAY’; Figure 3 and related text regarding an example visual interface of an electronic tracking device; Figure 12 and related text regarding item 1208 ‘TRANSMIT A DISPLAY UPDATE FOR THE ELECTRONIC INK DISPLAY OF THE IDENTIFIED ELECTRONIC TRACKING DEVICE THROUGH AT LEAST ONE FO THE ONE OR MORE WIRELESS ACCESS POINTS BASED ON DETERMINING THAT THE OPERATION NOTIFICATION COMPRISES A TRANSITION FROM THE CURRENT MANUFACTURING PROCESS STEP TO A NEXT MANUFACTURING PROCESS STEP’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the acquired process information of Mostyn to include the preceding and succeeding manufacturing steps of Morris. Thus, inadvertent skipping of a manufacturing process step can be avoided by enforcing process step sequential order, as stated by Morris (Paragraph 0044).
Claim 4
While the combination of Mostyn and Morris disclose the limitations above, Mostyn does not disclose wherein the at least one processor further configured to carry out transitioning the process information displayed on the display in response to a user operation in a left-right direction on the display.
Regarding Claim 4, Morris discloses the following:
wherein the at least one processor further configured to carry out transitioning the process information displayed on the display in response to a user operation in a left-right direction on the display [see at least Paragraph 0018 for reference to the electronic tracking devices being configured as receive-and-display devices absent interactive user inputs to support reduced wireless network traffic and power requirements; Paragraph 0020 for reference to input being manually entered using touch sensitive interfaces of the data entry interfaces; Paragraph 0038 for reference to the interactive user interface including data input fields]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Mostyn to include the display of manufacturing steps and transition of Morris. Thus, inadvertent skipping of a manufacturing process step can be avoided by enforcing process step sequential order, as stated by Morris (Paragraph 0044).
Claim 5
While the combination of Mostyn and Morris disclose the limitations above, Mostyn does not disclose wherein the at least one processor further configured to carry out displaying, on the display, a degree of deviation between one piece of the process information being displayed on the display and the piece of the process information corresponding to the latest step.
Regarding Claim 5, Morris discloses the following:
wherein the at least one processor further configured to carry out displaying, on the display, a degree of deviation between one piece of the process information being displayed on the display and the piece of the process information corresponding to the latest step [see at least Paragraph 0035 for reference to warning messages may be displayed on the interactive user interface when an error condition is detected; Paragraph 0038 for reference to warning messages being displayed on the interactive user interface when an error condition is detected]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Mostyn to include the display of manufacturing steps and deviation of Morris. Thus, inadvertent skipping of a manufacturing process step can be avoided by enforcing process step sequential order, as stated by Morris (Paragraph 0044).
Claim 6
While the combination of Mostyn and Morris disclose the limitations above, Mostyn does not disclose wherein the at least one processor further configured to carry out displaying an operation image on the display, the operation image configured to be operated for returning display on the display to the piece of the process information corresponding to the latest step.
Regarding Claim 6, Morris discloses the following:
wherein the at least one processor further configured to carry out displaying an operation image on the display, the operation image configured to be operated for returning display on the display to the piece of the process information corresponding to the latest step [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to visual interface depicted on the electronic - ink display of the electronic tracking device can include a variety of elements to assist in tracking the status of an order, manufacturing process steps completed, and a manufacturing process step to be performed; Paragraph 0038 for reference to the interactive user interface including command buttons to initiate a pause operation to stop accumulating time against the current manufacturing process step, a process split operation, a finish operation operable to stop accumulating time and updates to the electronic-ink display responsive to the transition]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Mostyn to include the display of manufacturing steps and operation images of Morris. Thus, inadvertent skipping of a manufacturing process step can be avoided by enforcing process step sequential order, as stated by Morris (Paragraph 0044).
Claim 8
While the combination of Mostyn and Morris disclose the limitations above, Mostyn does not disclose wherein the process information displayed on the display includes a branch from which processes selectable by a user originate.
Regarding Claim 8, Morris discloses the following:
wherein the process information displayed on the display includes a branch from which processes selectable by a user originate [see at least Paragraph 0018 for reference to the electronic tracking devices being configured as receive-and-display devices absent interactive user inputs to support reduced wireless network traffic and power requirements; Paragraph 0020 for reference to input being manually entered using touch sensitive interfaces of the data entry interfaces; Paragraph 0038 for reference to the interactive user interface including data input fields]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Mostyn to include the display of manufacturing steps and transition of Morris. Thus, inadvertent skipping of a manufacturing process step can be avoided by enforcing process step sequential order, as stated by Morris (Paragraph 0044).
Claim 9
While the combination of Mostyn and Morris disclose the limitations above, Mostyn does not disclose wherein the at least one processor further configured to carry out displaying an operation image on the display based on displaying a piece of the process information related to transport on the display, the operation image configured to be operated for displaying an image indicating a transport route.
Regarding Claim 9, Morris discloses the following:
wherein the at least one processor further configured to carry out displaying an operation image on the display based on displaying a piece of the process information related to transport on the display, the operation image configured to be operated for displaying an image indicating a transport route [see at least Paragraph 0020 for reference to an operator in manufacturing work area may be actively performing a manufacturing process step on a first group of parts, while another group of parts is waiting to be transported to the next one of the manufacturing work areas, and another group of parts may be waiting to start processing at the manufacturing work area with different electronic tracking devices assigned to each of the three groups of parts; Paragraph 0026 for reference to visual interface depicted on the electronic - ink display of the electronic tracking device can include a variety of elements to assist in tracking the status of an order, manufacturing process steps completed, and a manufacturing process step to be performed; Paragraph 0038 for reference to the interactive user interface including command buttons to initiate a pause operation to stop accumulating time against the current manufacturing process step, a process split operation, a finish operation operable to stop accumulating time and updates to the electronic-ink display responsive to the transition]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Mostyn to include the display of manufacturing steps and operation images of Morris. Thus, inadvertent skipping of a manufacturing process step can be avoided by enforcing process step sequential order, as stated by Morris (Paragraph 0044).
Claim 10
While the combination of Mostyn and Morris disclose the limitations above, Mostyn does not disclose wherein a manner of the user operation for transitioning the display of the process information is changeable.
Regarding Claim 10, Morris discloses the following:
wherein a manner of the user operation for transitioning the display of the process information is changeable [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to values displayed on the visual interface can be set based on receiving a display update for the electronic - ink display of the electronic tracking device through at least one of the one or more wireless access points of FIG. 1, for instance, upon completion / transition of the current manufacturing process step to a next manufacturing process step; Paragraph 0033 for reference to resource selection processing being used to set process parameters and outgoing information to the electronic tracking devices; Paragraph 0034 for reference to configuration table can include current system settings that may be used to customize display elements of the electronic tracking devices and user interface of the manufacturing system operator computer systems]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Mostyn to include the display configurations of transitions of Morris. Thus, inadvertent skipping of a manufacturing process step can be avoided by enforcing process step sequential order, as stated by Morris (Paragraph 0044).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mostyn (U.S 2021/0383405 A1) in view of Morris (U.S 2019/0286112 A1), as applied in claim 1, in view of King (U.S 2022/0214668 A1).
Claim 7
While the combination of Mostyn and Morris disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein the process information includes an amount of carbon dioxide discharged in each step of the process, and the at least one processor further configured to carry out displaying at least one of the amount of carbon dioxide discharged in each step of the process, and a total amount of carbon dioxide discharged through the process up to a latest step.
Regarding Claim 7, King discloses the following:
wherein the process information includes an amount of carbon dioxide discharged in each step of the process [see at least Paragraph 0155 for reference to environmental impact metrics including carbon emissions; Paragraph 0155 for reference to the carbon emissions component determining an amount of carbon emissions generated by a manufacturing process in accordance with the manufacturing quote; Figure 19 and related text regarding item 1904 ‘carbon emissions component’; Figure 24 and related text regarding item 2408 ‘DETERMINING, BY THE SYSTEM, AN AMOUNT OF CARBON EMISSIONS GENERATED BY A MANUFACTURING PROCESS THAT UTILIZES THE MANUFACTURING CHARACTERISTIC TO MANUFACTURE THE PRODUCT DESIGN’]
the at least one processor is configured to carry out displaying at least one of the amount of carbon dioxide discharged in each step of the process, and a total amount of carbon dioxide discharged through the process up to a latest step [see at least Paragraph 0037 for reference to the user interface component generating displays, reports, graphs, charts, quotes, tables, and/or the like to convey manufacturing information, cost information, and/or tracking information; Paragraph 0155 for reference to the carbon emissions component determining an amount of carbon emissions generated by a manufacturing process in accordance with the manufacturing quote; Paragraph 0160 for reference to the sustainability component calculating the total carbon emissions; Figure 19 and related text regarding item 1904 ‘carbon emissions component’; Figure 22 and related text regarding a non-limiting tracking display that can present the status and/or progress of one or more initialized manufacturing quotes; Figure 24 and related text regarding item 2408 ‘DETERMINING, BY THE SYSTEM, AN AMOUNT OF CARBON EMISSIONS GENERATED BY A MANUFACTURING PROCESS THAT UTILIZES THE MANUFACTURING CHARACTERISTIC TO MANUFACTURE THE PRODUCT DESIGN’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process information of Mostyn to include the carbon dioxide amount of King. Doing so would indicate whether a product feature included in the product design is permissible based on a plurality of manufacturing considerations associated with the manufacturing process, as stated by King (Paragraph 0006).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
CN112470116A
Matsuoh et al
Program Manufacturing System, Program And Manufacturing Terminal Device
US2019/0012151 A1
Holbrook et al.
INTERFACE FOR BUILDING AND UPDATING PROCESSING MODULES IN A MANUFACTURING ENVIRONMENT
US2018/0253874 A1
Nomamoto et al.
DISPLAY METHOD, DISPLAY CONTROL DEVICE, AND RECORDING MEDIUM
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights