DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 11/15/2024.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 filed on 11/15/2024 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2024 and on 08/26/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner search notes
With respect to the prior arts, none of the prior arts of record, taken individually or in any combination, teach, inter alia,
A planning method that sequentially performs a plurality types of processing on a plurality of objects, in which a processing time is set for each of the plurality of types of processing for each of the plurality of objects and the number of processing entities for any one of the plurality of objects is set for each of the plurality of types of processing, and performs a plan of arranging the plurality of objects in the processing entities of the plurality of types of processing under a condition that, during a period in which the processing entity is performing processing on any one of the objects, the processing entity do not perform processing on another object, the planning program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising: a first stage of arranging the plurality of objects in the processing entities of the plurality of types of processing by forward arrangement in which arrangement is planned with a predetermined time point as a starting point according to a predetermined order for the plurality of objects; a second stage of arranging the plurality of objects in the processing entities of the plurality of types of processing by backward arrangement in which arrangement is planned in a direction opposite to a time axis with a predetermined time point as a starting point according to a processing completion order of each object of final processing in the arrangement obtained in the first stage; a third stage of aligning processing start times of each object from a front in each processing in the arrangement obtained in the second stage; and a fourth stage of moving forward the arrangement obtained in the third stage to a predetermined time point.
The prior art references most closely resembling the Applicant’s claimed invention are Klett at al. (US 20060026052 A1), Sasaki et al. (JP2013-152648), Nakamura (JP2007-21264), and Takahashi et al. (JP2002373013).
Klett teaches performing a backward scheduling process to schedule activities based on a desired completion time for each activity, a time to complete each activity, and a last time that each activity can be started to meet the desired completion time for each activity (target period), the backward scheduling process further determining the availability of resources to perform the activities for each of a number of time periods, the backward scheduling process producing a list of activities arranged at least in part based on the latest period that the activity is to be started, and automatically proceeding from the backward scheduling process to a forward scheduling process including defining a set of scheduling zones with activities to be performed during each zone and determining an order in which the activities should be scheduled using the results of the backward scheduling process starting with activities with earlier target periods and allocating resources forward in time [Klett, claim 1].
Sasaki teaches A classification unit configured to classify a plurality of processes including a process in which a constraint related to an execution order is set into a first process and a second process based on whether a forward-type constraint or a backward-type constraint is set; and A plan creation unit configured to create a first plan for performing the first step and a second plan for performing the second step; and A determination unit configured to determine whether a third plan, which is a combination of the first plan and the second plan, complies with the constraint set for the process; and A condition change unit configured to change a condition for creating the first plan and the second plan when the determination unit determines that the third plan does not comply with the constraint [see claim 1].
Nakamura teaches A forward scheduling step of performing forward processing of each step in consideration of planned data based on a scheduling result of the backward scheduling step [see claim 1].
Takahashi teaches production scheduling method for generating a production plan corresponding to an order or a lot by allocating a plurality of jobs related to a production process in a time axis direction to each resource required for producing an object of each order or lot, the production scheduling method comprising: Setting, for the order or the lot, at least one plan parameter capable of setting a different allocation condition for each of the resources; and Allocating a plurality of jobs allocatable to the resource backward and / or forward, stacking the jobs, and then distracting the jobs; and Controlling an arrangement order of the plurality of jobs for each of the resources in accordance with the allocation condition after the stacking / unstacking of the plurality of jobs.
None of the cited documents by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the features in the independent claims, specifically the features “a first stage of arranging the plurality of objects in the processing entities of the plurality of types of processing by forward arrangement in which arrangement is planned with a predetermined time point as a starting point according to a predetermined order for the plurality of objects; a second stage of arranging the plurality of objects in the processing entities of the plurality of types of processing by backward arrangement in which arrangement is planned in a direction opposite to a time axis with a predetermined time point as a starting point according to a processing completion order of each object of final processing in the arrangement obtained in the first stage; a third stage of aligning processing start times of each object from a front in each processing in the arrangement obtained in the second stage; and a fourth stage of moving forward the arrangement obtained in the third stage to a predetermined time point” nor could a person skilled in the art easily conceive of such features even in the light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing. The pending claims 1-18 are therefore distinguished from the prior arts cited by the Examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 recite the limitation “according to a processing completion order of each object of final processing in the arrangement obtained in the first stage” which renders the claim indefinite because the “final processing in the arrangement obtained in the first stage” is not known what is it. Further, specification does not disclose further explanation about final processing in the arrangement obtained in the first stage.
Claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 depend from claims 1, 7, and 13 and do not cure the noted deficiency. Therefore, they are also rejected under 112(b).
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-18 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-18 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of arranging a plurality of objects in manufacturing processing entities.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “sequentially performs a plurality types of processing on a plurality of objects, in which a processing time is set for each of the plurality of types of processing for each of the plurality of objects and the number of processing entities for any one of the plurality of objects is set for each of the plurality of types of processing, and performs a plan of arranging the plurality of objects in the processing entities of the plurality of types of processing under a condition that, during a period in which the processing entity is performing processing on any one of the objects, the processing entity do not perform processing on another object, a first stage of arranging the plurality of objects in the processing entities of the plurality of types of processing by forward arrangement in which arrangement is planned with a predetermined time point as a starting point according to a predetermined order for the plurality of objects; a second stage of arranging the plurality of objects in the processing entities of the plurality of types of processing by backward arrangement in which arrangement is planned in a direction opposite to a time axis with a predetermined time point as a starting point according to a processing completion order of each object of final processing in the arrangement obtained in the first stage; a third stage of aligning processing start times of each object from a front in each processing in the arrangement obtained in the second stage; and a fourth stage of moving forward the arrangement obtained in the third stage to a predetermined time point.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite Mental Process because an ordinary person can reasonably perform the claimed forward and backward object arrangements for manufacturing purpose. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 7 and 13 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 7 and 13 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 recite Mental Process because an ordinary person can reasonably perform the claimed forward and backward object arrangements for manufacturing purpose. As a result, claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a planning program that”, “the planning program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising:”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 7 and 13 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 7 further recites “A planning method that sequentially performs a plurality types of processing on a plurality of objects” and claim 13 further recites “An information processing device comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to:”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 7 and 13 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 7, and 13. As a result, claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a planning program that”, “the planning program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising:”. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 7 and 13 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 7 further recites “A planning method that sequentially performs a plurality types of processing on a plurality of objects” and claim 13 further recites “An information processing device comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to:”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 7 and 13 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 7, and 13. As a result, claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (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 US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623