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 .
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Examiner's communication of 02/18/2026, Applicant, on 05/18/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are currently amended.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 112
The arguments have been fully considered and found to be persuasive.
Accordingly, the Examiner withdraws the 35 USC § 112 rejections of the pending claims in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims can recite mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’).
Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory in Content Extraction is according to the court an abstract idea that is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts. Present claim 1 is collecting and analyzing data using a generic computer processor. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on the similarity of the idea described in this claim to several abstract ideas found by the courts that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The present claims mirror cases like Billing v. United States or FairWarning IP v. latric Systems where the court ruled that collecting, analyzing, and displaying data for risk or compliance purposes is an abstract idea, regardless of how complex the scoring algorithm is.
Further, the additional elements in the claims (a processor and a memory) do not improve any existing technology. As a result, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two.
Because the Examiner has determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the Examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making this Step 2B determination, the Examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The Examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step,’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B” Id. In this part of the analysis, the Examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the steps of forward and backward object arrangements for manufacturing purpose is accomplished in a non-conventional way. The Examiner therefore concludes that the claims used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea of arranging objects for manufacturing purpose and that there is no inventive concept in the present claims.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
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 does 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 the final type of 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, wherein the planning program generates an optimized schedule for controlling a manufacturing system comprising the processing entities, the optimized schedule simultaneously improving an operation rate of the processing entities and reducing a total processing completion time compared to a schedule generated by only the forward arrangement or only the backward arrangement”
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
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klett at al. (US 20060026052 A1) 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.
Sasaki et al. (JP2013-152648) 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.
Nakamura (JP2007-21264) 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.
Takahashi et al. (JP2002373013) 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.
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 02/21/2022 necessitated the updating of the 35 USC § 101 and the 35 USC § 103 rejections of the pending claims presented in the present Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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) 273-8300.
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
Prosecution Insights