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 . 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.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1-22 of the Response dated 12 June 2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1-7, 10-15, 17-19, and 28-31 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,700 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent appear to anticipate the claims of the present application.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) The “system” of claims 1-18, 21, and 22 constitutes a machine under 35 USC 101, the “method” of independent claim 19 constitutes a process under the statute, and the “non-transitory computer-readable medium” of independent claim 20 constitutes a manufacture under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1-22 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“... determine a first workflow sequence for a primary workflow stage of a workflow unit for a plurality of product items; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... generate one or more second workflow sequences for one or more secondary workflow stages of the workflow unit concurrently with the determination of the first workflow sequence, wherein the generation of the one or more second workflow sequences is based on a transformation of the first workflow sequence according to a combination of: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... multiple threads selected from a defined thread pool ... based on a specification ..., and the multiple threads optimally allocated to one or more instances ... for the transformation, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... wherein the transformation of the first workflow sequence to the one or more second workflow sequences comprises at least one of a parallelized transformation or a multi-threaded transformation that captures dependencies between the primary workflow stage and the one or more secondary workflow stages as sequential displacements corresponding to extended lead times or variable process times, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... a set of interdependent and compensated constraints of the first workflow sequence and the one or more second workflow sequences ..., and operational factors ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... a selection of transformation technique associated with a set of computations of one or more sequence parameters based on the set of interdependent constraints, and one or more correspondence tables ..., wherein ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... the one or more sequence parameters include at least a sequential displacement factor associated with a sequential displacement corresponding to each of the one or more secondary workflow stages, and an engineering change boundary (ECB), and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... the ECB indicates: a boundary ahead of which the sequential displacement is inapplicable, and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... a boundary condition for segregation of the plurality of product items based on an engineering criteria; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... evaluate the one or more second workflow sequences concurrently with the first workflow sequence based on at least the sequential displacement; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... obtain a global workflow sequence for the primary workflow stage and the one or more secondary workflow stages at run time based on the evaluation of the one or more second workflow sequences concurrently with the first workflow sequence; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... execute a set of operations on the plurality of machines to produce the plurality of product items, wherein the execution of the set of operations on the plurality of machines is based on the global workflow sequence ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... manage a set of parameters that corresponds to timing offsets by which the first workflow sequence is related with the one or more secondary workflow stages, wherein the set of parameters are associated with the set of operations for the production of the plurality of product items based on the global workflow sequence; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... control the execution of the set of operations on the plurality of product items to maximize a performance score for the set of operations, wherein the control of the execution of the set of operations is based on the set of parameters and a penalty score.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, associated with people managing operations of machines for production or manufacturing, which falls under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “obtain” step), and evaluation and/or judgment (e.g., the recited “determine,” “generate,” “evaluate,” “execute,” manage,” and “control” steps), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
“A system, comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor in a computing device associated with an industrial environment, the industrial environment includes a plurality of machines, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions, and based on the executed instructions, the processor is further configured to: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “defined thread pool” is “in the memory” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “specification” is “of the processor” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “instances” are “of a transformation engine” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “second workflow sequences” are “retrieved from a database” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “operational factors” are “retrieved from the database” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “correspondence tables” are “retrieved from the database” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “global workflow sequence” is “received from the processor” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, and mere automation of manual processes, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); 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, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, independent claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claim 1 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to: storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-18, 21, and 22 the claims depend from independent claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “wherein the obtained global workflow sequence for the primary workflow stage and the one or more secondary workflow stages corresponds to a global schedule to produce the plurality of product items, and the global schedule comprises a plurality of time durations for different jobs in the primary workflow stage and the one or more secondary workflow stages” of claim 2, the “wherein the one or more second workflow sequences are dependent on the first workflow sequence based on at least one of an extended lag time, a pull ahead, a number of flow routes, a re-entrant flow, or a partial route” of claim 3, the “wherein the managed set of parameters comprises at least one of an operational delay, a sequential delay, a routing delay, a re-entrant flow delay, or a quality assessment delay” of claim 4, the “the penalty score associated with a violation of at least one of a first set of constraints for the primary workflow stage and one or more second set of constraints for the one or more secondary workflow stages” of claim 5, the “generate the first workflow sequence for the primary workflow stage of the workflow unit based on a minimal violation of at least one of a first set of constraints” of claim 6, the “retrieve content ... for the determination of the first workflow sequence for the primary workflow stage of the workflow unit” of claim 7, the “wherein the first workflow sequence corresponds to a plurality of primary slots, each of the plurality of primary slots indicates a physical location of one of a component of a corresponding product item from the plurality of product items or a corresponding in-operation product item from the plurality of product items in the primary workflow stage, each of the one or more second workflow sequences correspond to a secondary slot from a plurality of secondary slots, each of the plurality of secondary slots indicates one of a component of a corresponding product item from the plurality of product items or a corresponding in-operation product item from the plurality of product items in one of the one or more second workflow stages, the first workflow sequence further corresponds to a primary lot that indicates one of a type or features of a job to be performed in the primary workflow stage, and each of the one or more second workflow sequences further correspond to a secondary lot that indicates a job to be performed in a corresponding secondary workflow stage of the one or more secondary workflow stages” of claim 8, the “determine a first primary slot from a plurality of primary slots in the primary workflow stage for each of a plurality of secondary slots in each of the one or more secondary workflow stages based on a correspondence table from the one or more correspondence tables; determine a primary lot for the first primary slot based on an analysis of the first workflow sequence for the primary workflow stage; and determine a secondary lot, in each of the one or more secondary workflow stages, that corresponds to the primary lot, wherein the sequential displacement is based on at least an extended lag time in which the one or more second workflow sequences are determined with respect to the first workflow sequence” of claim 9, the “wherein the sequential displacement is one of a positive sequential displacement in presence of the extended lead time and a negative sequential displacement in presence of the extended lag time” of claim 10, the “wherein the correspondence table corresponds to at least one of a timing correspondence table (TCT) or a routing correspondence table (RCT)” of claim 11, the “wherein the TCT is a data structure that comprises a mapping of each of the plurality of secondary slots in each of the one or more secondary workflow stages with a corresponding second primary slot of the plurality of primary slots in the primary workflow stage in absence of the sequential displacement” of claim 12, the “wherein the RCT is a data structure that comprises a mapping of each of the plurality of secondary slots in each of the one or more secondary workflow stages with a corresponding second primary slot of the plurality of primary slots in the primary workflow stage based on the sequential displacement applied to the TCT” of claim 13, the “determine a location of the secondary lot of a corresponding second workflow sequence from the one or more second workflow sequences based on an application of the sequential displacement from a current secondary slot from the plurality of secondary slots” of claim 14, the “generate the one or more second workflow sequences for the one or more secondary workflow stages of the workflow unit in one of a first pass or a second pass” of claim 15, the “evaluate a net sequential displacement for each secondary lot in each secondary workflow stage of the one or more secondary workflow stages; determine a position of the secondary slot from the plurality of secondary slots based on the net sequential displacement; and check whether a number of the secondary slot is one of less than or greater than a defined ECB associated with the ECB, wherein the secondary slot is assigned with one of a first available slot or a specific slot, available next to the defined ECB, in a case where the number of the secondary slot is less than the defined ECB” of claim 16, the “determine the first workflow sequence based on a meta-heuristic technique, and the meta-heuristic technique includes at least one stochastic optimization, ant colony optimization, or particle swarm optimization” of claim 17, the “monitor the execution of the set of operations based on the global workflow sequence at each of a plurality of pay-points, and each of the plurality of pay-points corresponds to a checkpoint in a virtual flow line for measurement of entry time and exit time of each product item of the plurality of product items” of claim 18, the “pre-calculate the transformation of the first workflow sequence when the sequential displacement depends on a job associated with a workflow stage; and re-calculate the transformation based on a modification of the first workflow sequence when the sequential displacement depends on a slot associated with the workflow stage” of claim 21, and the “determine a cumulative penalty score for the primary workflow stage and the one or more secondary workflow stages; and accept the obtained global workflow sequence based on the determined cumulative penalty score” of claim 22). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “system” of claims 2-18, 21, and 22; the “wherein the processor is further configured to” of claims 4-7, 9, 14-18, 21, and 22; and the “from a memory device” of claim 7). Accordingly, claims 2-18, 21, and 22 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding independent claims 19 and 20, while the claims are of different scope relative to independent claim 1 and to each other, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claim 1. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claim 1 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 19 and 20. Claims 19 and 20 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2017/0327247 A1 to Dike et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Dike”), in view of Gunawan, Indra, et al. “Project Scheduling Improvement Using Design Structure Matrix.” International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, January 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “Gunawan”), further in view of EP Pat. App. Pub. No. 3 035 256 A1 to Cailliau et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Cailliau”), and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0241986 A1 to Harper (hereinafter referred to as “Harper”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Dike discloses the following limitations:
“A system, comprising: ...” - Dike discloses, an “Automated Control System” (title), and “Data processing system 1400” (para. [0143]).
“... a memory configured to store instructions; and ...” - Dike discloses, “instructions for software that may be loaded into memory 1406” (para. [0144]).
“... a processor in a computing device associated with an industrial environment, the industrial environment includes a plurality of machines, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions, and based on the executed instructions, the processor is further configured to: ...” - Dike discloses, “Manufacturing system 524 is a hardware system and is configured to manufacture product 522 which may take various forms, such as an aircraft or other suitable product. As depicted, manufacturing system 524 includes manufacturing equipment 526. Manufacturing equipment 526 includes at least one of fabrication equipment 528 or assembly equipment 530” (para. [0092]), “In addition to generating daily production schedule 520, controller 518 also may be configured to control the operation of manufacturing system 524. In particular, controller 518 may control the operation of at least one of fabrication equipment 528 or assembly equipment 530” (para. [0095]), “The control may take the form of direct control of manufacturing equipment 526. For example, robots, computer-controlled machines, and other equipment may be controlled by controller 518. In other illustrative examples, controller 518 may manage operations performed by human operators 532 in the manufacturing of product 522. For example, controller 518 may assign work items, provide instructions, display models, or perform other operations to manage operations performed by human operators 532. In these illustrative examples, product manager 500 is in communication with controller 518 to manage the manufacturing of product 522” (para. [0096]), and “Processor unit 1404 serves to execute instructions for software that may be loaded into memory 1406” (para. [0144]).
“... determine a first workflow sequence for a primary workflow stage of a workflow unit for a plurality of product items; ...” - Dike discloses, “With reference next to FIG. 6, an illustration of a product workflow map is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment” (para. [0104]), “product workflow map 600 has vertical lines 604. Vertical lines 604 are examples of divisions 202, shown in block form in FIG. 2, representing manufacturing days 114” (para. [0105]), “As depicted, groupings 620 are groupings of vertical lines 604. Groupings 620 represent phases of manufacturing for the commercial aircraft” (para. [0107]), “product workflow map 600 also includes workflows 635. One or more of workflows 635 are present for each of the systems represented in segments 606 of product workflow map 600. For example, workflow 638 is present in wiring system 608. Workflow 640 and workflow 642 are present in environmental control system 610; workflow 644 is present in hydraulic system 612; workflow 646 is present in wing 614; and workflow 648 and workflow 650 are present in fuselage 616. Workflow 652, workflow 654, and workflow 656 are present in engine system 618” (para. [0108]). Determining subsequences of work items that are part of sequences forming phases for manufacturing multiple components, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
“... generate one or more second workflow sequences for one or more secondary workflow stages of the workflow unit concurrently with the determination of the first workflow sequence, wherein the generation of the one or more second workflow sequences is based on a transformation of the first workflow sequence according to a combination of: ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Dike also discloses, “product plan 108 is a dynamic product plan. In other words, product plan 108 is not fixed and may change during the manufacturing of product 102. In one illustrative example, product manager 110 changes product plan 108 when performance information 130 about the manufacturing of product 102 received during the manufacturing of product 102 affects timing of workflows 124. The timing of workflows 124 may be affected in a number of different ways including, as an example, at least one of delays of work items 122, early completions of work items 122, unavailability of parts, equipment malfunctions, rework of parts, or other events that may change how long or when work is performed” (para. [0051]), and “events may result in a need to change product plan 108” (para. [0053]). Generating other subsequences of work items that are part of other sequences forming other phases for manufacturing, such that the workflow map shows all subsequences, sequences, and phases concurrently, and wherein the workflow map acts as the product plan, with changes to upstream aspects of the plan affecting downstream aspects of the plan in a dynamic fashion, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
“... multiple threads selected from a defined thread pool in the memory based on a specification of the processor, and the multiple threads optimally allocated to one or more instances of a transformation engine for the transformation, ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Dike also discloses, “As manufacturing product 522 progresses, updates and changes may be made to product plan 504. In this manner, product 522 may be manufactured more efficiently with an ability to make updates to product plan 504 while the manufacturing of product 522 occurs. In this manner, daily production schedule 520 may be adjusted as needed to increase the efficiency at which product 522 is manufactured by the entity in entities 513” (para. [0100]), and “Memory 1406” (para. [0145]). Segments of the various workflows shown in FIG. 6 of Dike, wherein data for the segments and workflows are stored in the memory based on operations of the processor, and multiple segments and workflows can be considered for adjustments to be made, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
“... wherein the transformation of the first workflow sequence to the one or more second workflow sequences comprises at least one of a parallelized transformation or a multi-threaded transformation that captures dependencies between the primary workflow stage and the one or more secondary workflow stages as sequential displacements corresponding to extended lead times or variable process times, ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Dike also discloses, “The tasks may be performed in parallel. Often times, the tasks are dependent on the completion of other tasks” (para. [0003]), and “The timing of workflows 124 may be affected in a number of different ways including, as an example, at least one of delays of work items 122, early completions of work items 122, unavailability of parts, equipment malfunctions, rework of parts, or other events that may change how long or when work is performed” (para. [0051]) The adjusting of segments of workflows from one form to another, wherein the segments can be parallel or dependent (see FIG. 6), and wherein the adjustments affect sequencing of the segments and workflows in association with delays and/or early completions of work items, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
“... a set of interdependent and compensated constraints of the first workflow sequence and the one or more second workflow sequences retrieved from a database, and operational factors retrieved from the database, and ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Dike also discloses, “Product plan 108 also includes work items 122 performed by entities 118 during manufacturing days 114. Work items 122 are any operations performed to manufacture product 102. For example, entities 118 may perform work items 122 to perform work on systems 120. Work items 122 may include performing operations for at least one of an assembly task, a certification event, a database update, a design activity, a fabrication activity, an approval of a product configuration, a transfer of an assembly to a new work location, a receipt of a part from a supplier, a creation of an engineering drawing, a release of an engineering drawing, a revision to an engineering drawing, a publication of a coordination memo, a submittal of a purchase order, a management review, a software release, a forming of a system test, and other tasks involved in manufacturing product 102. Work items 122 may include at least one of coordination sheets, decision points, engineering drawings, explanatory notes, or other suitable items that may be used to perform operations in work items 122” (para. [0039]), “product plan 108 organizes work items 122 within workflows 124” (para. [0040]), “some of work items 122 may be performed sequentially in which one work item is performed after another work item is completed. In another example, some of work items 122 may be performed at the same time or substantially the same time” (para. [0041]), “Dependencies 126 may be present between at least one of work items 122 or workflows 124. The dependencies may be for some portion of work items 122, workflows 124, or some combination thereof. Dependencies 126 between at least one of work items 122 or workflows 124 may be used to identify an order in which work items 122 are performed” (para. [0044]), and “product plan 504 is stored in database 506” (para. [0089]). Aspects of the operations and related items that are part of the work items of upstream sequences of work items, and aspects of operations and related items that are part of the work items of downstream sequences of work items, wherein there are dependencies between the upstream and downstream work items, timing of the work items are adjusted based on delays and/or advancements, and data is stored in databases, in Dike, read on the recited limitation.
The combination of Dike and Gunawan (hereinafter referred to as “Dike/Gunawan”) teaches the following limitations of independent claim 1:
“... a selection of transformation technique associated with a set of computations of one or more sequence parameters based on the set of interdependent constraints and one or more correspondence tables retrieved from the database, wherein, ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. While Dike discloses workflow sequences, and segments thereof, having interdependent work items therein, with the work items having associated information stored in databases, Dike does not appear to disclose how the work item information is organized. Gunawan discloses use of a “Design structure matrix (DSM)” (p. 311). Determining changes to make to downstream work items based on events associated with upstream work items, wherein the determining takes into account the operations and items of all work items, in Dike, wherein the information is arranged according to the DSM, in Gunawan, reads on the recited limitation.
Gunawan discloses project scheduling (see title, p. 311), similar to the claimed invention and to Dike. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective fling date of the claimed invention, to have modified work item information, in Dike, to be organized using the DSM, of Gunawan, as “The main advantage of the DSM over traditional project management tools is in its compactness and ability to present an organised and efficient mapping among tasks that is clear and easy to read regardless of size,” per Gunawan (see p. 326). Also, the modification constitutes use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results, per MPEP 2143(I).
The combination of Dike, Gunawan, and Cailliau (hereinafter referred to as “Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau”) teaches the following limitations of independent claim 1:
“... the one or more sequence parameters include at least a sequential displacement factor associated with a sequential displacement corresponding to each of the one or more secondary workflow stages, and an engineering change boundary (ECB), and ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. The items and operations considered when dynamically modifying the work items, sequences, and phases in some way by some amount, and incorporate the work items, sequences, and phases with those downstream, in Dike, reads on the recited “the one or more sequence parameters include at least a sequential displacement factor associated with a sequential displacement corresponding to each of the one or more secondary workflow stages” limitation. Dike does not, however, appear to disclose anything reading on the recited “engineering change boundary (ECB)” limitation. Cailliau discloses, “the start range and the end range both have a minimum value and maximum value, also called "start lower bound", "start upper bound", "end lower bound" and "end upper bound" in the following. The start range and the end range allow flexibility to the task. The specifications also include a schedule of the task. The schedule of the task is a certain (meaning "sure/definite", as in "not uncertain") definition of the period of time within which the piece of work must be accomplished. In other words, the schedule of the task corresponds to one possible realization/instance/occurrence of the task (that is with exact values for the period of time, where uncertainty is removed). The schedule of the task thus includes an exact start value and an exact end value, also called respectively "scheduled start value" and "scheduled end value" in the following. The scheduled start (resp. end) value corresponds to the start (resp. end) datum and thus belongs to the start (resp. end) range. The system ensures this belonging in any known way, for example by forbidding values breaking the rule or by outputting an indication, also referred to as "alert" in the following (e.g. audio and/or visual), when the rule is broken” (para. [0027]), and “a task 90 that may be displayed as on FIG. 9 using the approach of FIG. 7 and defined, at least, by the range of a start bound 92; the range of an end bound 94; the task start value 96; the task end value 98” (para. [0057]). At least the start lower bound, in Cailliau, when applied in the context of the dynamic workflow map modifications, in Dike, reads on the recited “corresponding to ... an engineering change boundary (ECB)” limitation.
“... the ECB indicates: a boundary ahead of which the sequential displacement is inapplicable, and ...” - See the aspects of Cailliau that have been cited above. The forbidding of start values that break rules, including the start lower bounds, in Cailliau, reads on the recited limitation.
“... a boundary condition for segregation of the plurality of product items based on an engineering criteria; ...” - See the aspects of Dike and Cailliau that have been cited above. The bounds, in Cailliau, when used to define and modify the work items used to manufacturing the components, based on the required items and operations of the work items, in Dike, read on the recited limitation.
Cailliau discloses “managing a task” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Dike/Gunawan. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the scheduled work items, of Dike, to include bounds and ranges for starting and ending, as in Cailliau, for flexibility, per Cailliau (see para. [0015]). Also, the modification constitutes use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results, per MPEP 2143(I).
Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau teaches the following limitations of independent claim 1:
“... evaluate the one or more second workflow sequences concurrently with the first workflow sequences based on at least the sequential displacement; ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Evaluating different, but related, workflow sequences of the same workflow map (see FIG. 6), to make adjustments for delays and/or advancements, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
“... obtain a global workflow sequence for the primary workflow stage and the one or more secondary workflow stages at run time based on the evaluation of the one or more second workflow sequences concurrently with the first workflow sequence; ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. The elements of the workflow map, including upstream and downstream phases, workflows, work item sequences, and sub-sequences, and also including original and adjusted upstream and downstream phases, workflows, work item sequences, and sub-sequences, all of which relate to each other as evidenced by the linking of different elements in the workflow map in FIG. 6, and all of which are considered together as each element affects or is affected by elements related to it, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
“... execute a set of operations on the plurality of machines to produce the plurality of product items, wherein the execution of the set of operations on the plurality of machines is based on the global workflow sequence received from the processor; ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. The controller controlling the operation of manufacturing system, including its various types of equipment, to manufacture components, wherein the control is based on the schedule outlined by the workflow map, arrived at by operation of the processor, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
“... manage a set of parameters that corresponds to timing offsets by which the first workflow sequence is related with the one or more secondary workflow stages, wherein the set of parameters are associated with the set of operations for the production of the plurality of product items based on the global workflow sequence; and ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Managing information for work items that have been delayed or advanced, and/or work items affected by the delays or advancements, wherein the work items are linked and form part of a downstream phase of production, and wherein the information for the work items are associated with the workflow map (see FIG. 6), in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
The combination of Dike, Gunawan, Cailliau, and Harper (hereinafter referred to as “Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper”) teaches limitations below of independent claim 1:
“... control the execution of the set of operations on the plurality of product items to maximize a performance score for the set of operations, wherein the control of the execution of the set of operations is based on the set of parameters and a penalty score.” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Dike also discloses, “automated changes to product plan 108 during the manufacturing of product 102 may result in a more efficient manufacturing of product 102” (para. [0056]), and “product plan 108 may be out of date and inefficiencies in the manufacturing of product 102 may result in delays in completing product 102” (para. [0064]). While Dike discloses controlling steps for manufacturing products to achieve greater efficiency, Dike does not appear to disclose how efficiency is gauged or measured. Harper discloses, “A detailed example of a fitness equation used to evaluate a combined production/distribution solution is described below for an embodiment of the invention related to the production and distribution of industrial liquids. At step 630, the new solution may be inserted into the population. In one embodiment, the production optimizer keeps a ranked order of the solutions in the population, ordered according to the fitness of each solution” (para. [0074]), “compute an evaluation score (i.e., a fitness) of a production/distribution solution. The following discussion provides an example of calculating an evaluation score of a production/distribution solution for an embodiment used to optimize the production” (para. [0093]), and various “penalty” computations (see paras. [0093] and [0094]). Controlling performance of work items for manufacturing products to achieve more efficiency, in Dike, based on optimizing production based on solutions having highest fitness scores, wherein the fitness scores account for penalty values, as in Harper, reads on the recited limitation.
Harper discloses “a method for optimizing a supply chain management (SCM) problem” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the achieving of greater efficiency, of Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau, to include the optimizing based on fitness scores and penalty values, as in Harper, “to quickly identify high-quality solutions,” per Harper (Abstract). Also, the modification constitutes use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results, per MPEP 2143(I).
Regarding claim 2, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 1, wherein the obtained global workflow sequence for the primary workflow stage and the one or more secondary workflow stages corresponds to a global schedule to produce the plurality of product items, and ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. The workflow map for manufacturing the components of the system, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
“... the global schedule comprises a plurality of time durations for different jobs in the primary workflow stage and the one or more secondary workflow stages.” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. The workflow map including vertical lines indicative of time divisions representing manufacturing days associated with upstream and downstream manufacturing phases, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more second workflow sequences are dependent on the first workflow sequence based on at least one of an extended lag time, a pull ahead, a number of flow routes, a re-entrant flow, or partial route.” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Sub-sequences of work items that depend from, or are modified versions of, other sub-sequences of work items, wherein the sub-sequences include the same or related work items, and said work items can be delayed, advanced, and the like, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 1, wherein the managed set of parameters comprises at least one of an operational delay, a sequential delay, a routing delay, a re-entrant flow delay, or a quality assessment delay.” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Information about operation and work items related to delays, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 1, wherein the maximization of the performance score is further based on a penalty score associated with a violation of at least one of a first set of constraints for the primary workflow stage and one or more second set of constraints for the one or more secondary workflow stages.” - See the aspects of Dike and Harper that have been cited above. For information, settings, and the like, associated with work items of various phases of manufacturing, in Dike, optimizing by selecting solutions with highest fitness scores, wherein the fitness score are based on penalty values indicative of violations of redlines (see para. [0094]) during production, as in Harper, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the first workflow sequence for the primary workflow stage of the workflow unit based on a minimal violation of at least one of a first set of constraints.” - See the aspects of Dike and Harper that have been cited above. Determining optimized solutions with highest fitness scores, wherein the fitness scores are determined based on various penalties for violations, in Harper, when applied to the workflow map, phases, sequences, and sub-sequences, of Dike, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, in the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to retrieve content from a memory device for the determination of the first workflow sequence for the primary workflow stage of the workflow unit.” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Dike also discloses, “Data processing system 1400 may be used to implement computer system 128 in FIG. 1, computer system 502 in FIG. 5, clients 512 in FIG. 5, and controller 518 in FIG. 5” and “data processing system 1400 includes communications framework 1402, which provides communications between processor unit 1404, memory 1406, persistent storage 1408” (para. [0143]). The communications between the processor unit and the memory, for determining elements of the workflow map, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 1, wherein the first workflow sequence corresponds to a plurality of primary slots, ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. The locations of machine equipment associated with upstream work items of the workflow map, of Dike, read on the recited limitation.
“... each of the plurality of primary slots indicates a physical location of one of a component of a corresponding product item from the plurality of product items or a corresponding in-operation product item from the plurality of product items in the primary workflow stage, ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. The locations of components at or in the machine equipment associated with upstream work items of the workflow map, of Dike, read on the recited limitation.
“... each of the one or more second workflow sequences correspond to a secondary slot from a plurality of secondary slots, ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. The locations of machine equipment associated with downstream work items of the workflow map, of Dike, read on the recited limitation.
“... each of the plurality of secondary slots indicates one of a component of a corresponding product item from the plurality of product items or a corresponding in-operation product item from the plurality of product items in one of the one or more second workflow stages, ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. The locations of components at or in the machine equipment associated with downstream work items of the workflow map, of Dike, read on the recited limitation.
“... the first workflow sequence further corresponds to a primary lot that indicates one of a type or features of a job to be performed in the primary workflow stage, and ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. The series of work items associated with performance of operations by machine equipment in upstream phases, in Dike, read on the recited limitation.
“... each of the one or more second workflow sequences further correspond to a secondary lot that indicates a job to be performed in a corresponding secondary workflow stage of the one or more secondary workflow stages.” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. The series of work items associated with performance of operations by machine equipment in downstream phases, in Dike, read on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a first primary slot from a plurality of primary slots in the primary workflow stage for each of a plurality of secondary slots in each of the one or more secondary workflow stages based on a correspondence table from the one or more correspondence tables; ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. The processor determining links of the workflow map that connect upstream work items on upstream phases to downstream work items in downstream phases, in Dike, reads on the recited “wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a first primary slot from a plurality of primary slots in the primary workflow stage for each of a plurality of secondary slots in each of the one or more secondary workflow stages” limitation. Dike does not appear to mention use of tables in that context. Gunawan discloses, on pp. 312 and 313, in Section 2.1, “The DSM is a compressed, matrix representation of a project. The matrix contains a list of all tasks. It shows what information is required to start a certain task and where that information from that task feed into, which other tasks in the matrix use the output information (Eppinger and Ulrich, 2003). In a DSM model, a project task is assigned to a row and a corresponding column.” The intersecting relationship between the tasks listed in the columns and the tasks listed in the rows, in Gunawan, when applied to the work items of the workflows of Dike, reads on the recited “based on a correspondence table from the one or more correspondence tables” limitation. The rationales for combining the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 9.
“... determine a primary lot for the first primary slot based on an analysis of the first workflow sequence for the primary workflow stage; and ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Determining which work item to place in a position along an upstream sequence of work items, based on its relationship with related work items of the workflow, in one of the manufacturing phases, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
“... determine a secondary lot, in each of the one or more secondary workflow stages, that corresponds to the primary lot, ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Determining which work item to place in a position along a downstream sequence of work items, based on its relationship with related work items of the workflow, in one of the manufacturing phases, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
“... wherein the sequential displacement is based on at least an extended lag time in which the one or more second workflow sequences are determined with respect to the first workflow sequence.” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Where a delay to a work item of one sequence results in a delay of a work item of another sequence, wherein one of the sequences has dependencies from the other, in Dike, the scenario reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 9, wherein the sequential displacement is one of a positive sequential displacement in presence of the extended lead time and a negative sequential displacement in presence of the extended lag time.” - Dirk discloses, “if a first work item has a dependency on a second work item, a delay in the first work item also may result in a delay in the second work item” (para. [0053]). A delay in one work item that delays a second work item, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 9, wherein the correspondence table corresponds to at least one of a timing correspondence table (TCT) or a routing correspondence table (RCT).” - Gunawan discloses, “Figure 2” that is “A DSM representation of a project” (p. 313), “Figure 4” that is a “DSM representation” (p. 317), and “Figure 5” that shows “Topological sorting the DSM” (p. 318). The DSM, of Gunawan, reads on the recited “TCT” limitation because it establishes an order or timing of tasks. Additionally or alternatively, the DSM reads on the recited “RCT” limitation because it establishes task-to-task transitions or routing from one task to another. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 11, wherein the TCT is a data structure that comprises a mapping of each of the plurality of secondary slots in each of the one or more secondary workflow stages with a corresponding second primary slot of the plurality of primary slots in the primary workflow stage in absence of the sequential displacement.” - Gunawan discloses, “The DSM is a compressed, matrix representation of a project. The matrix contains a list of all tasks. It shows what information is required to start a certain task and where that information from that task feed into, which other tasks in the matrix use the output information (Eppinger and Ulrich, 2003)” (pp. 312 and 313, in Section 2.1). See also, the DSM representation identified as “Figure 4” on p. 317 of Gunawan. In a DSM model, a project task is assigned to a row and a corresponding column. The grid- or table-like arrangement of the DSM, with correspondence between column tasks D-F to row tasks A-C in the DSM, of Gunawan, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 11, wherein the RCT is a data structure that comprises a mapping of each of the plurality of secondary slots in each of the one or more secondary workflow stages with a corresponding second primary slot of the plurality of primary slots in the primary workflow stage based on the sequential displacement applied to the TCT.” - Gunawan discloses “Figure 4” is a “DSM representation” (p. 317), “Figure 5” is “Topological sorting the DSM” (p. 318), and “Figure 7” is “The final partitioned matrix” (p. 320). In Gunawan, the DSM of Figure 4 transitions, through various sorting and partitioning processes, into the intermediate form of Figure 5, and then to the final form of Figure 7. The final partitioned matrix, in Gunawan, reads on the recited “wherein the RCT is a data structure that comprises a mapping of each of the plurality of secondary slots in each of the one or more secondary workflow stages with a corresponding second primary slot of a plurality of primary slots in the primary workflow stage” limitation, wherein the column headings toward the right of the final partitioned matrix read on the recited “plurality of second slots in each of the one or more secondary workflow stages” limitation, and the row headings toward the top of the final partitioned matrix read on the recited “corresponding second primary slot of a plurality of primary slots in the primary workflow stage” limitation. The final partitioned matrix being generated by changes of sequence of the numbered steps (see row and column headings) of the DSM, in Gunawan, reads on the recited “based on the sequential displacement applied to the TCT” limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a location of the secondary lot of a corresponding second workflow sequence from the one or more second workflow sequences based on an application of the sequential displacement from a current secondary slot from the plurality of secondary slots.” - Dike discloses, “With the different dependencies, changes to one work item may affect other work items within the same workflow and may affect other workflows being performed in parallel to manufacture the aircraft” (para. [0004]), “These events may result in a need to change product plan 108. For example, if a first work item has a dependency on a second work item, a delay in the first work item also may result in a delay in the second work item” (para. [0053]), and “in changing the group of work items 122, product manager 110 performs at least one of changing a flow of work items 122, changing an order in which work items 122 are performed, adding a work item, removing the work item, reassigning the work item to another entity, or some other suitable change. In changing the flow of work items 122, product manager 110 changes a group of workflows 124” (para. [0055]). Determining that a work item should be moved from a current position in a workflow, to a different position, due to upstream delays, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the one or more second workflow sequences for the one or more secondary workflow stages of the workflow unit in one of a first pass or a second pass.” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. The creation of modified downstream workflows, or portions thereof, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to: evaluate a net sequential displacement for each secondary lot in each secondary workflow stage of the one or more secondary workflow stages; ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. The processor determining modifications to downstream work items of downstream phases due to multiple upstream delays, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
“... determine a position of the secondary slot from the plurality of secondary slots based on the net sequential displacement; and ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Determining a place for a downstream operation based on upstream delays, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
“... check whether a number of the secondary slot is one of less than or greater than a defined ECB associated with the ECB, wherein the secondary slot is assigned with one of a first available slot or a specific slot, available next to the defined ECB, in a case where the number of the secondary slot is less than the defined ECB.” - See the aspects of Dike and Cailliau that have been cited above. Ensuring that the start time of an operation does not violate the bounds, in Cailliau, when applied to scheduling operations in Dike, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection independent claim 1, also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: monitor the execution of the set of operations based on the global workflow sequence at each of a plurality of pay-points, and ...” - See the aspects of Dike and Cailliau that have been cited above. Monitoring the performance of operations by machine equipment based on the workflow map, in Dike, by keeping track of start and end points and bounds, in Cailliau, reads on the recited limitation.
“... each of the plurality of pay-points corresponds to a checkpoint in a virtual flow line for measurement of entry time and exit time of each product item of the plurality of product items.” - See the aspects of Dike and Cailliau that have been cited above. The start and end points and bounds for operations, in Cailliau, when applied to the operations, work items, and phases, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 18.
Regarding independent claim 19, while the claim is of different scope relative to independent claim 1, the claim recites limitations similar to those recited by claim 1. As such the rationales applied to reject claim 1 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 19. Claim 19 is, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper.
Regarding independent claim 20, while the claim is of different scope relative to independent claims 1 and 19, the claim recites limitations similar to those recited by claims 1 and 19. As such the rationales applied to reject claims 1 and 19 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 20. Claim 20 is, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper.
Regarding claim 21, Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: pre-calculate the transformation of the first workflow sequence when the sequential displacement depends on a job associated with a workflow stage; and ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Determining adjustments to make to any portion of the workflow map due to delays during a phase of the workflow map, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
“... re-calculate the transformation based on a modification of the first workflow sequence when the sequential displacement depends on a slot associated with the workflow stage.” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. Re-determining adjustments to make to previously adjusted portions of the workflow map, including positioning (in terms of time) work items in the workflow map, in Dike, reads on the recited limitation.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dike, in view of Gunawan, further in view of Cailliau, further in view of Harper, and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0119604 A1 to Lo et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Lo”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Dike, Gunawan, Cailliau, Harper and Lo (hereinafter referred to as “Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper/Lo”) teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the first workflow sequence based on a meta-heuristic technique, and the meta-heuristic technique includes at least one stochastic optimization, ant colony optimization, or particle swarm optimization.” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. While Dike discloses enhancing efficiency in a way that likely leads to optimization, that connection is not explicitly clear in Dike. Lo discloses, “When running a scheduling engine, such as Squeaky Wheel Optimization (SWO), the system attempts to produce a solution using an algorithm supplied by the scheduling engine DLL, such as a Greedy Algorithm. The system will evaluate solutions using the Objective Function methods and prioritize the scheduling items according to particular criteria defined in the scheduling engine DLL. The system repeats the processes until an optimum solution is determined or until particular conditions defined in the Exit Method are met. The system may employ other scheduling engines including, but not limited to, "Genetic Algorithm" and "Ant colony optimization".” (Para. [0169].)
Lo discloses, “management, allocation and scheduling” (para. [0002]), similar to the claimed invention and to Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the process involving enhancing efficiency, of Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper, for optimality, per Lo (para. [0169]). Also, the modification constitutes use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results, per MPEP 2143(I).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dike, in view of Gunawan, further in view of Cailliau, further in view of Harper, and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2009/0210076 A1 to Erramilli et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Erramilli”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Dike, Gunawan, Cailliau, Harper, and Erramilli (hereinafter referred to as “Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper/Erramilli”) teaches the following limitations:
“The system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a cumulative penalty score for the primary workflow stage and the one or more secondary workflow stages; and ...” - See the aspects of Dike that have been cited above. While Dike discloses seeking schedules for increased efficiency, Dike does not appear to disclose how efficiency levels are determined. Erramilli discloses, “Processes are found in all industries. Various examples of the processes in manufacturing organizations include but are not limited to planning, scheduling, and the manufacture of products on an assembly line. These processes have to be optimized to attain business advantage in terms of cost and efficiency in execution” and “there can be a large number of rules/constraints that govern the execution of such processes. A violation of any rule or constraint directly translates into increased operational costs. Therefore, it is important to optimize such processes by adhering to all constraints of the environment” (para. [0005]), and determining “Total penalty” (para. [0101]). Determining the total penalty, in Erramilli, when used for establishing efficiency of the workflow map and its various phases, in Dike, dreads on the recited limitation.
“... accept the obtained global workflow sequence based on the determined cumulative penalty score.” - See the aspects of Dike and Erramilli that have been cited above. Using the workflow map with the most efficiency, in Dike, based on considering of metrics like the total penalty, in Erramilli, reads on the recited limitation.
Erramilli discloses, “generating an optimized solution for a process in a manufacturing” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the process of seeking improved efficiency, of Dike/Gunawan/Cailliau/Harper, to include consideration of constraints, violations, and effects on costs, as in Erramilli, to seek optimized solutions, per Erramilli (see Abstract). Also, the modification constitutes use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results, per MPEP 2143(I).
Response to Arguments
On pp. 17-36 of the Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 101. The applicant argues that the claimed invention is inextricably tied to a machine and does not describe an abstract idea (see Response at p. 18), and the applicant emphasizes recited limitations as support for the argument (see id. at pp. 18-20). The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. The claimed invention recites machine elements, but is not inextricably tied to a machine. The claimed invention recites steps that can be performed without any machine. See the 35 USC 101 section above for examples. Further, some of the machine elements emphasized by the applicant amount to generic, conventional computer hardware, and the like, that have little to no bearing on making determinations about abstract ideas at Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis (because they are additional elements to be considered at Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B of the eligibility analysis). The examiner asserts that establishing workflow sequences, transforming them, and other forms of production planning, are not inextricably tied to a machine. While the steps may require monitoring machines, and/or may be used to specify how and when machines should be operated, the machines themselves do not perform the claimed steps. Rather, the claimed steps are planning steps that can be, and have been, performed mentally, possibly with the assistance of pen and paper.
The applicant also argues that the Office’s Example 39 presents rationales that support eligibility of the claimed invention. (See Response, pp. 20-22.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. The eligible claim from Example 39 involves transforming digital facial images, and training a neural network to perform the act and other acts. Unlike the exemplary claim, the applicant’s claimed invention involves transforming workflow sequences that, unlike digital facial images, can be transformed mentally (with the assistance of pen and paper, perhaps). Also, the applicant’s claimed invention covers human interactions with machines, calling for application of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, unlike the exemplary claim.
The applicant makes additional arguments tied to Step 2A, Prong One (see Response, pp. 22-24), but those arguments have been addressed in the preceding paragraphs, and rebuttals will not be re-presented here for the sake of brevity. The same is true for any other arguments/rebuttals below that are viewed as redundant.
The applicant also argues that, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application due to the additional elements of the claims establishing improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(a)). (See Response, pp. 24-30.) The applicant emphasizes various limitations of the claimed invention, including, steps involving generating of, transforming of, and other processing of, workflow sequences. (See id.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. The claim limitations highlighted by the applicant recite use of computers/technology to perform workflow planning, and even to improve workflow planning. But workflow planning is an abstract idea, and an improvement to an abstract idea is not an improvement in technology. (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).) The claims involve using generic, conventional computers/technology to improve workflow planning, not to improve the computers/technology. In other words, the workflow sequencing that is the entire focus of the claims does not improve how computers function. Rather, the claims merely establish that there are benefits to workflow sequencing that arise through the use of computers/technology to perform workflow sequencing. This is not an eligibility-warranting improvement under MPEP 2106.05(a).
The applicant also argues that eligibility rationales from the Office’s Example 42 are applicable to the claimed invention. (Response, pp. 30-32.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. Nothing in the claimed invention is similar to, or otherwise analogous to, “the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user,” which is the sole reason for eligibility in the example. The claimed invention is closer to the ineligible claim from the example than the eligible one.
The applicant also argues for eligibility of the claimed invention based on the BASCOM case. (Response, pp. 32-34.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. Per MPEP 2106.05(I)(A), the following may qualify as significantly more at Step 2B of the eligibility analysis: “Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).” And per MPEP 2106.05(d), “in BASCOM, even though the court found that all of the additional elements in the claim recited generic computer network or Internet components, the elements in combination amounted to significantly more because of the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement that provided a technical improvement in the art. BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243-44 (2016).” BASCOM is not applicable to the claimed invention because eligibility in accordance with BASCOM is limited to situations involving a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components (even if the components individually are generic or conventional). The claimed invention, however, does not recite any non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components. Using generic, conventional computer components to perform workflow sequencing of machines has nothing to do with how those computer components are arranged. The rationale(s) from BASCOM do not apply here.
On pp. 36-43, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejections under 35 USC 103. The applicant argues that Dike does not disclose the claimed ECB features. The applicant also argues that Cailliau does not describe an ECB that indicates a boundary ahead of which a sequential displacement is inapplicable and a boundary condition for segregation of a plurality of product items based on engineering criteria; and instead, the start bound range and end bound range of Cailliau merely define permissible temporal ranges, such that the bounds are task scheduling constraints and do not correspond to an engineering transition point within a manufacturing workflow. (Response, pp. 36-40.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. The applicant's arguments about deficiencies of Cailliau read like arguments against the references individually, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The incorporation of the temporal bound aspects of Cailliau into the workflow map, and the constituent workflow phases, sequences, branches, work items, and the like, in Dike, is what reads on the recited limitation. Further, a temporal bound, as in Cailliau, when incorporated into the workflow map in Dike, would define temporal boundaries ahead of which an adjustment to work items should not be applied (e.g., so as to avoid violating the temporal bounds), and would temporally segregate sequences of work items (in Dike) based on whether the work items can be performed in the permissible bounds (of Cailliau). Also, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “engineering transition point”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following:
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2003/0236691 A1 to Casatl et al. discloses, “systems and methods enable service providers to improve the quality of services delivered to customers and employees by improving service execution through the optimal selection of resources (e.g., internal resources or external resources, or both) that are invoked to execute the delivered services. In one aspect, process execution data is accessed. Business process instances are classified in accordance with a quality taxonomy. A predictive model including a set of rules for scoring business process outcomes at different stages of the business process is built based upon the classified business process instances. In another aspect, process entities to be invoked at stages of an active business process instance are selected based upon the predictive model. In another aspect, a user is prompted to define a quality taxonomy for classifying outcomes of instances of a business process.” (Abstract.)
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2007/0282476 A1 to Song et al. discloses, “Methods and apparatus are disclosed for workflow scheduling. A workflow scheduling system, such as a computer system, is used to coordinate and schedule tasks in complex scheduling environments. The system accepts incoming orders and dynamically schedules them according to the constraints of the resources required for the order and any constraints of the orders themselves.” (Abstract.)
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0173626 A1 to Chi et al. discloses, “Systems and methods are disclosed for efficient maintenance of job prioritization for profit maximization in cloud-based service delivery infrastructures with multi-step cost structure support by breaking multiple steps in the SLA of a job into corresponding cost steps; generating a segmented cost function for each cost step; creating a cost-based-scheduling (CBS)-priority value associated with a validity period for each segment based on the segmented cost function; and choosing the job with the highest CBS priority value.” (Abstract.)
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2014/0310054 A1 to Hernandez et al. discloses, “a method and a system for comparing established workflows against a workflow pattern to determine their degree of compatibility with this workflow pattern. In the method and system, compatibility scores between established workflows and a workflow pattern can be determined. To determine the compatibility score between a workflow pattern, which comprises first tasks, and an established workflow, which comprises second tasks, equivalent tasks in the established workflow can be identified. Then, dependency matrices can be constructed for the first tasks in the workflow pattern and the equivalent tasks in the established workflow. These dependency matrices can be compared in order to identify any dependency relation matches in corresponding task pairs. Values can be assigned to the dependency relation matches and compatibility scores can be determined based on the sum of those values.” (Abstract.)
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0082266 A1 to Safaei discloses, “coordinating aircraft maintenance routing and scheduling for a fleet of aircraft over a given time period is described. The method comprises receiving an initial list of due maintenance tasks based on aircraft information of the fleet and a proposed fleet utilization distribution; generating a set of aircraft routes for the fleet, the routes comprising maintenance opportunities for the due maintenance tasks, the due maintenance tasks being considered as aggregated maintenance constraints for generation of the aircraft routes; scheduling the due maintenance tasks into the maintenance opportunities while respecting target due dates; and in case of infeasibility for maintenance task scheduling within the maintenance opportunities of the aircraft routes, regenerating the set of aircraft routes for the fleet using the aggregated maintenance constraints and additional constraints, and rescheduling the due maintenance tasks using the regenerated set of aircraft routes.” (Abstract.)
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0279126 A1 to Erramilli discloses, “A planning and scheduling system, which handles generation of a global workflow sequence for multiple workflow stages of a workflow unit, determines a first workflow sequence for a primary workflow stage of the workflow unit for a plurality of product items. The one or more second workflow sequences are generated for one or more secondary workflow stages of the workflow unit concurrently based on a transformation of the determined first workflow sequence. A global workflow sequence is obtained for the primary workflow stage and the one or more secondary workflow stages based on at least the determined first workflow sequence for the primary workflow stage and the generated one or more second workflow sequences. A set of operations for the plurality of product items is executed based on the obtained global workflow sequence to maximize a performance score for the executed set of operations on the plurality of product items.” (Abstract.)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this 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).
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 THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights