DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed December 19, 2024. Currently Claims 1-18 are pending. Claim 1 is the independent claim.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: System for Updating Manufacturing Schedule Based on Workpiece Removal Times or the like.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 appears to be in improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 appears to be an independent claims masquerading as a dependent claim. Examiner interpreted claim 16 to be an independent claim for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction required.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 16, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of manufacturing scheduling. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, manufacturing scheduling (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to change a predetermined schedule based on a comparison of the manufacturing time with a removal time, wherein manufacturing scheduling is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of fundamental economic principles or practices. See 2106.04(a). Further all of the steps of “detecting”, “retrieve”, “generate”, “run”, “generating” and “displaying” recite functions of the manufacturing scheduling are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of fundamental economic principles or practices. The intended purpose of independent claims 1 and 16 appears to be to transfer a changed (manufacturing/machine) schedule to a controller of a machine.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of fundamental economic principles or practices. The exceptions are the generic machinery: machine management system (software per se), controller, machine.
As described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly”).
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2106.04(a)), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic include: machine management system (software per se), controller, machine. Generic computers or other machinery performing generic functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic machine or machine management system (software per se) would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's manufacturing scheduling in the general field of manufacturing/production management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a) regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims on merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-18 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited machine management system (software per se), controller, machine," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the MPEP 2106.04(a), that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of determining a manufacturing time for workpieces, determining a removal time for sorting the workpieces, and changing the predetermined schedule to obtain a changed schedule all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a machine management system (software per se), controller, machine nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The step of transferring the changed schedule to a controller is directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic machine and a generic controller does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic machine management system (software per se), controller, machine are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the retrieving and displaying steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the machine and/or controller is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere manufacturing workpieces is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-15, 17 and 18, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of manufacturing scheduling and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent Claims 1 and 16.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by having the manufacturing and removal of manufactured pieces happen at the same time (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by adapting the manufacturing time to the removal time (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 4 further limits the abstract idea by determining a downtime of a removal device or machine and changing the scheduling by adding at least one unplanned activity during the downtime (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by increasing the downtime by temporarily shifting successive planned activities of the machine or removal device (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the unplanned activity to comprise a diagnostic or cleaning or calibration or lubrication activity (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by recording manufacturing process data or removal process data during operation by the machine (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea by determining a manufacturing time and removal time of at least one further machine and changing the schedules of planned activities based on the manufacturing and removal times (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea by transferring at least one planned activity from the schedule of the machine into the schedule of the further machine as an unplanned activity which is added to the schedule instead of transferred (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea by determining the manufacturing time based on workpiece material or thickness or geometry or manufacturing parameters or condition of workpiece support of position of a panel on a pallet change or an error or manual interruption (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 12 further limits the abstract idea by determining removal time based on workpiece material removes or thickness of workplace material removes or number of workpieces removed or a number of different workpiece geometrics removes or workpiece geometry or position on a panel on a pallet changer or a movement sequence or a number of workpiece removals (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 13 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the system to a self-learning algorithm (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 14 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the self-learning algorithm to a neural network (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 15 and 17 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the method for implementation of a flatbed tool (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 18 further limits the abstract idea by including a plurality of machines (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mata et al., U.S. Patent No. 6907305
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, Mata et al. discloses a machine (Figure 1, Element 115 - process tool) and machine management system (Figures 1, 2; Abstract) for performing planned activities (job, task, work, etc.; Figure 3 – machine scheduling agent, lot scheduling agent, PM scheduling agent) on a machine wherein workpieces (lots, wafers, microchips, ICs, etc.) are manufactured (produced, assembled, fabricated, etc.) according to a predetermined schedule (calendar; Figure 3, Elements 385, 2375, 370; Figure 4) and workpieces are sorted (move, transport, unload, discharge, transfer, etc.) from a removal area of the machine into a deposition (bin, shelf, storage, another machine, etc.) area during a further planned activity of the machine according to the predetermined schedule (Figure 5), the method/machine comprising:
Determining a manufacturing time (cycle, app time) for the workpieces by the machine/system based on manufacturing process data of the machine (Tables 1, 2; Column 3, Line 55; Column 19, Lines 56-61; Figures 4, 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B; Column 11, Lines 46-68; Column 12, Lines 37-68);
Determining a removal (unloading, discharge, post-process, tear-down, unmount, reset, etc.) time (appointment) for sorting (moving, storing, transferring, etc.) the workpieces based on removal process data (Column 16, Lines 26; Tables 2, 3, 5);
Changing (rescheduling, updating, shifting, etc.) the predetermined schedule to obtain a changed schedule based on a comparison of the manufacturing and removal times (reactive scheduling; Tables 3, 5; Figures 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B; Claims 4, 7, 9);
Transferring (publish, notify, etc.) the change schedule to a controller of the machine (Figure 2; Figure 1, Element 110; Claims 1, 8, 11; Table 4; Column 10, Lines 55-62).
Regarding Claim 2, Mata et al. discloses a machine/machine management system wherein manufacturing workpieces by the machine takes place at the same time as removal of the manufactured workpieces (Figures 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B).
Regarding Claim 3, Mata et al. discloses a machine/machine management system wherein the predetermined schedule is changed by adapting the manufacturing time of the machine apparatus to the removal time (Figures 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B; Table 3 – Column 25).
Regarding Claim 4, Mata et al. discloses a machine/machine management system further comprising a downtime of the machine OR a removal device, wherein the machine/system changes the predetermined schedule by adding at least one unplanned activity during the downtime (downtime appointment, repair, preventive maintenance; Tables 1, 2; Figure 3, Element 315; Column 12, Lines 3-55; Column 13, Lines 15-29; Claims 5, 7).
Regarding Claim 5, Mata et al. discloses a machine/machine management system further comprising increasing the downtime by temporarily shifting planned activities of the machine OR removal device for performing the at least one unplanned activity (Tables 1, 2; Figure 3, Element 315; Column 12, Lines 3-55; Column 13, Lines 15-29; Claims 5, 7).
Regarding Claim 6, Mata et al. discloses a machine/machine management system wherein the unplanned activity comprises monitoring OR maintaining a condition of the machine (repair, PM, , recondition, diagnostic; Tables 1, 2; Figure 3, Element 315; Column 12, Lines 3-55; Column 13, Lines 15-29; Claims 5, 7).
Regarding Claim 7, Mata et al. discloses a machine/machine management system wherein the unplanned activity comprises a diagnostic OR cleaning OR calibration OR lubrication activity (Column 2, Lines 20-24).
Regarding Claim 8, Mata et al. discloses a machine/machine management system wherein the manufacturing process data OR the removal process data are recorded (logged, listeners) during operation of the machine and evaluated by the system (Column 2, Lines 25-43; Figure 2, Element 270; Figure 3, Elements 356, 358).
Regarding Claim 9, Mata et al. discloses a machine/machine management system further comprising determining a manufacturing time of at least one further machine (Figure 1, Elements 140, 115) by the machine management system based on manufacturing process data of the further machine (Tables 1, 2; Column 3, Line 55; Column 19, Lines 56-61; Column 11, Lines 46-68; Column 12, Lines 37-68), and determining a removal time of the further machine by the machine management system based on removal process data of the further machine (Tables 2, 3, 5), and wherein the machine management system changes the schedules of the planned activities based on the manufacturing times and the removal times (Tables 3, 5; Figures 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B), and transfers the schedules to the controllers of the respective machines (Figure 1, Element 110; Claims 1, 8, 11; Table 4; Column 10, Lines 55-62).
Regarding Claim 11, Mata et al. discloses a discloses a machine/machine management system wherein the manufacturing time is determined based on a workpiece material, a workpiece thickness, a workpiece geometry, manufacturing parameters of the machine when manufacturing the workpieces, a condition of a workpiece support, a position of a panel on a pallet changer, an error occurring during manufacturing, and/or a manual interruption during the manufacturing of the workpieces (Table 2 – error during processing, downtime appointment, Table 3 - interrupted lot; aborted appointment – Column 15, Line 63, Table 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Mata et al. discloses a discloses a machine/machine management system comprising a plurality of machines (Figure 1, Elements 140, 145, 115).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mata et al., U.S. Patent No. 6907305 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Barker et al., U.S. Patent No. 11016468.
Regarding Claim 10, while reassigning/transferring/delegating manufacturing activities between machines, including as unplanned activities is old and well-known Mata et al. does not disclose transferring at least one activity as claimed.
Barker et al., from the same field of endeavor of manufacturing machine scheduling, discloses a system and method comprising transferring at least one planned activity from a schedule of the machine into a schedule of the further machine as an unplanned activity, and wherein at least one further unplanned activity is added into the schedule of the machine instead of the transferred planned activity (Column 14, Lines 55-68; Column 15, Lines 1-33; Claims 6, 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to that the machine/management system of Mata et al. would have benefited from the well-known transferring (delegating, reassigning, reallocating) activities from one machine to another machine as an unplanned activity as part of a manufacturing process in view of the disclosure of Barker et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mata et al., U.S. Patent No. 6907305 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Wakazono, U.S. Patent No. 7551974.
Regarding Claim 12, Mata does not disclose that the removal time I determine based on one of the various factors recited in claim 12.
Wakazono, from the same field of endeavor of manufacturing using machines, discloses a system and method wherein the removal time is determined based on a workpiece material of the removed workpiece OR a workpiece thickness of the removed workpiece OR a number of removed workpieces, OR a number of different workpiece geometries of the removed workpieces, OR a workpiece geometry, OR a position of a panel on a pallet changer, OR a movement sequence of a removal device over the panel during removal of the workpieces, OR a number of workpiece removals (Column 9, lines 10-17; Column 15, lines 55-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to that the machine/management system of Mata et al. would have benefited from determining the removal time based on more or more of the recited factors in view of the disclosure of Wakazono, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mata et al., U.S. Patent No. 6907305 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Grimm et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230297076.
Regarding Claim 13, while the utilization of self-learning algorithms (e.g .ML, AI, etc.) in manufacturing is old and well known Mata does not disclose self-learning as claimed.
Grimm et al., from the same field of manufacturing discloses that the machine/machine management system has a self-learning algorithm (Paragraphs 13, 41, Claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to that the machine/management system of Mata et al. would have benefited from having a self-learning algorithm in view of the disclosure of Grimm et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 13, while the utilization of neural networks in manufacturing is old and well-known neither Mata nor Grimm et al. disclose neural network as as claimed.
Grimm et al., from the same field of manufacturing discloses that the machine/machine management system has a machine learning algorithm (Paragraphs 13, 41, Claim 9).
Official notice is taken that neural networks are an old, well-known, conventional and routine form/technique for machine learning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to that the machine/management system of Mata et al. and Grimm et al. would have benefited from having a neural network in view of the official notice, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mata et al., U.S. Patent No. 6907305 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Kiefer al., U.S. Patent No. 11009856.
Regarding Claim 15, while the utilization of flatbed machines in manufacturing is old and well known Mata does not disclose flatbed machine as claimed.
Kiefer et al., from the same field of manufacturing discloses that the machine/machine management system is adapted on a flatbed machine tool (Abstract; Figures 1, 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to that the machine/management system of Mata et al. would have benefited from being adapted for a flatbed machine in view of the disclosure of Kiefer et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Howie et al., U.S. Patent No. 5093794 discloses a machine/manufacturing system management comprising manufacturing equipment scheduling, modifying schedules to adjust for changes in operation durations, new jobs, etc.
Watabe et al., U.S. Patent No, 11054809 discloses a machine/machine management system comprising manufacturing equipment scheduling system and method, recreating/updating schedule based on operational data (Figure 7).
Takehara et al., U.S. Patent No. 11009860 discloses a manufacturing scheduling system and method including taking into account detachment work time (removal; DETX 55).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
