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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/20/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement isacknowledged and has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Application
Claims 1-11 have been examined in this application. Thiscommunication is the first action on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is:
“information processing device…estimation part…evaluation part…update part” in Claim 11. We consider this to be a generic computer and hardware components per [0017] of Applicant’s specification.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that is directed to a judicial expectation, namely a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will henceforth be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection until otherwise noted. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing method for updating a production plan for producing a product by using a production facility, the method comprising: by an information processing device, estimating a current production capability regarding the production facility based on production performance data indicating a performance value of a production capability of the production facility; evaluating the production plan based on the current production capability estimated; and updating the production plan based on a result of the evaluating.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mental process and certain method of organizing human activity.
“estimating a current production capability…evaluating the production plan based on the current production capability…updating the production plan… recite abstract ideas - namely, mental processes that could be
performed by a human with a pen and paper, per the MPEP, merely
adapting them into the context of a technological environment with computing parts does not preclude them from being abstract
Further, as these operations are performed to analyze production data of a factory and optimize it, we consider this to correspond to a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity, namely as a fundamental economic practices.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claims 2-10 recite at least one abstract idea by virtue of their dependency from Claim 1.
Claim 11 recites at least one abstract idea by virtue of reciting substantially similar limitations.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing method for updating a production plan for producing a product by using a production facility, the method comprising: by an information processing device, estimating a current production capability regarding the production facility based on production performance data indicating a performance value of a production capability of the production facility; evaluating the production plan based on the current production capability estimated; and updating the production plan based on a result of the evaluating.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
As it pertains to Claim 1, the additional elements in the claims include “by an information processing device”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under Step 2A Prong Two. The heart of the claim lies with the mental process of analyzing factory production information and updating a plan on its basis. That a generic device is recited is secondary to the logic of the fundamental mental process embodied by the claims.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea.
Claim 11 additionally recites “an information processing device…an estimation part…an evaluation part…an update part”. These additional elements do not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application by analogous reasoning.
Claims 2-10 do not recite any additional elements beyond those in claims from which they depend, and therefore do not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to generic computing components that are merely used
as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than
generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular
technological environment or field of use. Further, looking at the additional
elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
present when considering the additional elements individually.
Claim 11 does not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more by analogous reasoning.
Claims 2-10 do not recite any additional elements beyond those in claims from which they depend, and therefore do not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tyber(US 20170031354 A1).
Claims 1, 11
As to Claim 1,
Tyber teaches:
An information processing method for updating a production plan for producing a product by using a production facility, the method comprising:
In [0022], "Generally, methods, systems, apparatus, and computer program products for managing a manufacturing environment are disclosed. In one example embodiment, the management includes the scheduling of production and resources, the monitoring of schedule execution, and the automatic revision of schedules".
by an information processing device, estimating a current production capability regarding the production facility based on production performance data indicating a performance value of a production capability of the production facility;
See data intake from sensors indicating manufacturing state in [0023], "In one example embodiment, an optimizer generates, for example, a schedule for the machines and/or operators based on one or more manufacturing objectives, such as total throughput, machine throughput, target buffer levels, operator movement, and the like. The optimization is performed based on an initial state of the manufacturing environment. The initial state may be manually entered and/or may be obtained from manufacturing sensors that provide a snapshot of the present and/or historical state of the manufacturing environment, such as present and/or historical machine status, present and/or historical buffer levels, present and/or historical operator status, and the like". We understand capability to correspond to current state variables, with performance data values corresponding to specified objective values of state variables.
evaluating the production plan based on the current production capability estimated; and updating the production plan based on a result of the evaluating.
In [0025], "In one example embodiment, the output of the optimizer, such as a schedule for human operators, can be used as an input to the simulator to simulate the manufacturing operations based on the optimized schedule. The simulator results can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the schedule (and thereby the effectiveness of the optimizer) and/or to identify changes to the schedule, the manufacturing objectives, and the like. If changes to the manufacturing objectives are made, the optimization may be executed with the new manufacturing objectives and a new schedule(s) may be generated'.
Claim 11 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claim 2
As to Claim 2, Tyber teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Tyber teaches:
The information processing method according to Claim 1, wherein a machine-learned estimation model
Note per [0024] of Applicant's specification, we note a machine-learned estimation model to correspond to any one of the listed statistical models. See [0030] for simulation, "A distribution test, such as Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Anderson-Darling, or Chi-squared, may then be used to determine the distribution and associated parameters, such as normal distribution, exponential distribution, and the like, that represent the processing time. A pseudo random number generator is then used to generate samples from the determined distribution. The random numbers are used in executing the simulation. These inputs may automatically be updated over time based on recent sensor data. The simulator may similarly provide results in terms of distributions of various parameters, typically in the form of a mean and confidence interval, rather than an absolute number".
in which the production facility and a product type of the product are used as explanatory variables
Note the connection between simulating workflows and the varieties of items produced, such as items that require intermediate processing and those that can be directly produced, see [0033] "The intermediate products of process node 204-3 are then processed by the machines 104 of process nodes 204-4, 204-5, respectively. The machines 104 of process nodes 204-4, 204-5 perform the same process, but are not identical machines 104. Thus, the machines 104 of process nodes 204-4, 204-5 differ in one or more of throughput, processing time, operator requirements, and the like", and [0034], "The items produced by the machines 104 of process nodes 204-4, 204-5 may be directly processed by the machines 104 of process node 204-6, may be temporarily stored in individual buffer nodes 208 (not shown) dedicated to each machine 104 of process node 204-4, 204-5 or, as shown in FIG. 2, are temporarily stored in buffer node 208-7.".
and a probability distribution of the production capability is used as an objective variable is used in the estimating of the current production capability.
See [0030] as cited above, in particular note the relationship between the distribution of processing time and the simulation used to model other state variables, in [0030], "Each process node 204, such as process node 204-1, is associated with a processing time that indicates the amount of time needed to complete the corresponding process. The processing time may have a corresponding variance that defines the amount of variation between different performances of the process. In one example embodiment, a point estimate, such as the mean, median, or mode, processing time is associated with each process node 204 and is used for generating the simulation results".
Claim 3
As to Claim 3, Tyber teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Tyber teaches:
The information processing method according to Claim 1, wherein the production performance data includes a post-update performance value that is a performance value after previous updating of the production plan and a pre-update performance value that is a performance value before the previous updating of the production plan.
Note tweaking of performance values, or state variable objectives, in [0065], "In one example embodiment, the simulation results are then provided to, for example, a user, such as a manufacturing manager or foreman, who may optionally modify the schedule and/or the optimization objectives (e.g., manufacturing objectives)...For example, a manufacturing manager or foreman may issue changes to the manufacturing objectives based on the simulation results. If changes to the manufacturing objectives have been received, the optimizer is executed again (operation 520)".
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 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyber(US 20170031354 A1) in view of Crane(US 20150363730 A1).
Claim 4
As to Claim 4, Tyber teaches all the limitations of Claim 3 as outlined above.
Tyber teaches:
post-update performance value…pre-update performance value
In [0025], "In one example embodiment, the output of the optimizer, such as a schedule for human operators, can be used as an input to the simulator to simulate the manufacturing operations based on the optimized schedule. The simulator results can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the schedule (and thereby the effectiveness of the optimizer) and/or to identify changes to the schedule, the manufacturing objectives, and the like. If changes to the manufacturing objectives are made, the optimization may be executed with the new manufacturing objectives and a new schedule(s) may be generated'.
Tyber does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.However, Crane teaches:
The information processing method according to Claim 3, wherein a weight value of the post-update … value is set to be higher than a weight value of the … performance value.
In [0055], "In some embodiments, a source's weight can be time-dependent. In such embodiments, the source's weight can include a time decay element. For example, the weight given to a source's report of an SCD event can beS.Math.e.sup.t.sup.s.sup.−t.sup.cwhere S is the score given to the source for the SCD event (which can be weighted, as discussed above), t.sub.s is the time that the source reported the SCD event, and t.sub.c is the current time. The weighted scores of various sources can be summed and, if the sum of the weighted scores is above a threshold, the system can determine that the SCD event occurred. Thus, the older that a report is, the smaller the impact the report will have on determining that the SCD event occurred".
Tyber discloses a system for simulating manufacturing workflows and allocating resources. Crane discloses a system meant to manage supply chains and model production workflows. Each reference discloses means for simulating and analyzing manufacturing workflows. Extending the recency decay as recorded in Crane to the system of Tyber is applicable as both reference share the field of endeavor of manufacturing and production management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the recency weight of Crane and apply that to the system as taught in Tyber. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting such a recency adjusted weight would allow for further granularity to the averaging methodology described in [0060], allowing for more accurate metrics to be derived.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyber(US 20170031354 A1) in view of Mitarai(US 20180373738 A1).
Claim 5
As to Claim 5, Tyber teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Tyber teaches:
wherein, in the evaluating of the production plan, the production plan is evaluated based on the estimated current production capability and the estimated current switching time.
In [0025], "In one example embodiment, the output of the optimizer, such as a schedule for human operators, can be used as an input to the simulator to simulate the manufacturing operations based on the optimized schedule. The simulator results can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the schedule (and thereby the effectiveness of the optimizer) and/or to identify changes to the schedule, the manufacturing objectives, and the like. If changes to the manufacturing objectives are made, the optimization may be executed with the new manufacturing objectives and a new schedule(s) may be generated'. Note buffer time/delays in processing time between processes in [0030], "Each process node 204, such as process node 204-1, is associated with a processing time that indicates the amount of time needed to complete the corresponding process. The processing time may have a corresponding variance that defines the amount of variation between different performances of the process. In one example embodiment, a point estimate, such as the mean, median, or mode, processing time is associated with each process node 204 and is used for generating the simulation results".
Tyber does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Mitarai teaches:
The information processing method according to Claim 1, further comprising: estimating a current switching time regarding the production facility based on switching performance data indicating a performance value of a switching time required to switch a product to be produced by the production facility from a certain product type to another product type
In [0073], " Next, based on the similarity obtained for each of the refined pieces of offer information, the database search unit 48 estimates a rough amount of time for a setup change to switch from the product currently being manufactured to manufacture a product corresponding to the offer information...The threshold for the comparison and the rough amount of time determined accordingly may be changed in accordance with a manufacturing process being performed by the manufacturing apparatus. The manufacturing process being performed by the manufacturing apparatus may be estimated based on information of manufacturable products that is input by the manufacturable product registration unit 404 for example". Note we examine product type before and after switching in [0072], "Matching is then performed with the plurality of feature vectors held by the search data transmitted from the search data generation unit 47, and an appearance similarity between the product of each piece of offer information and the product currently being manufactured is calculated".
Tyber discloses a system for simulating manufacturing workflows and allocating resources. Mitarai discloses a system meant to monitor manufacturing and production workflows. Each reference discloses means for analyzing manufacturing workflows. Extending the switchover time prediction as recorded in Mitarai to the system of Tyber is applicable as both reference share the field of endeavor of manufacturing and production management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the switchover time prediction of Mitarai and apply that to the system as taught in Tyber. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that accounting for switchover time would allow for more accurate predictions of total processing time and derivative metrics.
Claim 6
As to Claim 6, Tyber combined with Mitarai teaches all the limitations of Claim 5 as outlined above.
Tyber teaches:
The information processing method according to Claim 5, wherein a machine-learned estimation model in which the production facility,
Note per [0024] of Applicant's specification, we note a machine-learned estimation model to correspond to any one of the listed statistical models. See [0030] for simulation, "A distribution test, such as Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Anderson-Darling, or Chi-squared, may then be used to determine the distribution and associated parameters, such as normal distribution, exponential distribution, and the like, that represent the processing time. A pseudo random number generator is then used to generate samples from the determined distribution. The random numbers are used in executing the simulation. These inputs may automatically be updated over time based on recent sensor data. The simulator may similarly provide results in terms of distributions of various parameters, typically in the form of a mean and confidence interval, rather than an absolute number".
and a probability distribution ... is used as an objective variable is used in the estimating of the current switching time.
in [0030], "Each process node 204, such as process node 204-1, is associated with a processing time that indicates the amount of time needed to complete the corresponding process. The processing time may have a corresponding variance that defines the amount of variation between different performances of the process. In one example embodiment, a point estimate, such as the mean, median, or mode, processing time is associated with each process node 204 and is used for generating the simulation results".
Tyber does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Mitarai teaches:
a product type of the product before switching, and a product type of the product after switching are used as explanatory variables
In [0073], " Next, based on the similarity obtained for each of the refined pieces of offer information, the database search unit 48 estimates a rough amount of time for a setup change to switch from the product currently being manufactured to manufacture a product corresponding to the offer information...The threshold for the comparison and the rough amount of time determined accordingly may be changed in accordance with a manufacturing process being performed by the manufacturing apparatus. The manufacturing process being performed by the manufacturing apparatus may be estimated based on information of manufacturable products that is input by the manufacturable product registration unit 404 for example". Note we examine product type before and after switching in [0072], "Matching is then performed with the plurality of feature vectors held by the search data transmitted from the search data generation unit 47, and an appearance similarity between the product of each piece of offer information and the product currently being manufactured is calculated".
switching time
In [0073], " Next, based on the similarity obtained for each of the refined pieces of offer information, the database search unit 48 estimates a rough amount of time for a setup change to switch from the product currently being manufactured to manufacture a product corresponding to the offer information...The threshold for the comparison and the rough amount of time determined accordingly may be changed in accordance with a manufacturing process being performed by the manufacturing apparatus. The manufacturing process being performed by the manufacturing apparatus may be estimated based on information of manufacturable products that is input by the manufacturable product registration unit 404 for example". Note we examine product type before and after switching in [0072], "Matching is then performed with the plurality of feature vectors held by the search data transmitted from the search data generation unit 47, and an appearance similarity between the product of each piece of offer information and the product currently being manufactured is calculated".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the switchover time prediction of Mitarai and apply that to the system as taught in Tyber. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above in Claim 5.
Claim 7
As to Claim 7, Tyber combined with Mitarai teaches all the limitations of Claim 5 as discussed above.
Tyber teaches:
The information processing method according to Claim 5, wherein the production performance data includes a post-update performance value that is a performance value after previous updating of the production plan and a pre-update performance value that is a performance value before the previous updating of the production plan.
Note tweaking of performance values, or state variable objectives, in [0065], "In one example embodiment, the simulation results are then provided to, for example, a user, such as a manufacturing manager or foreman, who may optionally modify the schedule and/or the optimization objectives (e.g., manufacturing objectives)...For example, a manufacturing manager or foreman may issue changes to the manufacturing objectives based on the simulation results. If changes to the manufacturing objectives have been received, the optimizer is executed again (operation 520)".
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyber(US 20170031354 A1) in view of Mitarai(US 20180373738 A1) in further view of Crane(US 20150363730 A1).
Claim 8
As to Claim 8, Tyber combined with Mitarai teaches all the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above.
Tyber teaches:
post-update performance value…pre-update performance value
In [0025], "In one example embodiment, the output of the optimizer, such as a schedule for human operators, can be used as an input to the simulator to simulate the manufacturing operations based on the optimized schedule. The simulator results can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the schedule (and thereby the effectiveness of the optimizer) and/or to identify changes to the schedule, the manufacturing objectives, and the like. If changes to the manufacturing objectives are made, the optimization may be executed with the new manufacturing objectives and a new schedule(s) may be generated'.
Tyber combined with Mitarai does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Crane teaches:
The information processing method according to Claim 7, wherein a weight value of the post-update … value is set to be higher than a weight value of the … performance value.
In [0055], "In some embodiments, a source's weight can be time-dependent. In such embodiments, the source's weight can include a time decay element. For example, the weight given to a source's report of an SCD event can beS.Math.e.sup.t.sup.s.sup.−t.sup.cwhere S is the score given to the source for the SCD event (which can be weighted, as discussed above), t.sub.s is the time that the source reported the SCD event, and t.sub.c is the current time. The weighted scores of various sources can be summed and, if the sum of the weighted scores is above a threshold, the system can determine that the SCD event occurred. Thus, the older that a report is, the smaller the impact the report will have on determining that the SCD event occurred".
Tyber combined with Mitarai discloses a system for simulating manufacturing workflows and allocating resources. Crane discloses a system meant to manage supply chains and model production workflows. Each reference discloses means for simulating and analyzing manufacturing workflows. Extending the recency decay as recorded in Crane to the system of Tyber combined with Mitarai is applicable as both reference share the field of endeavor of manufacturing and production management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the recency weight of Crane and apply that to the system as taught in Tyber combined with Mitarai. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting such a recency adjusted weight would allow for further granularity to the averaging methodology described in [0060], allowing for more accurate metrics to be derived.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyber(US 20170031354 A1) in view of Bembde(US 20240127156 A1) in further view of Spearman(US 20080015721 A1).
Claim 9
As to Claim 9, Tyber teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Tyber does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Bembde teaches:
The information processing method according to Claim 1, wherein, in the evaluating of the production plan, a simulation of a probability distribution of a production time is executed based on the estimated current production capability for each of a plurality of jobs in which products to be produced by the production facility are arrayed in time series for each product type,
See Fig. 7, and in [0107], "The number of buckets included in one manufacturing process may be set by the administrator of the factory or the like and may be set based on, for example, the number of products to be subjected to the specific manufacturing process (e.g., five products may be placed in one bucket), the type of product (e.g., products of the same type are placed in one bucket), the shift-change time of operators in the factory (products to be processed before a shift-change may be placed in one bucket), or the like".
Tyber discloses a system for simulating manufacturing workflows and allocating resources. Bembde discloses a system meant to manage optimization of manufacturing workflows and planning for failure conditions. Each reference discloses means for simulating and analyzing manufacturing workflows. Extending the segmented job view and management as recorded in Bembde to the system of Tyber is applicable as both references share the field of endeavor of manufacturing and production management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the segmented job view and rearrangement of Bembde and apply that to the system as taught in Tyber. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting such a granular view of worker scheduling would serve to aid workers in planning and optimizing their workflows.
Tyber combined with Bembde does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Spearman teaches:
and an occurrence probability of a due date delay is evaluated for each of the plurality of jobs.
In [0102], "In other embodiments, as relating to step 790, the probability of late shop orders may be computed continuously. Whenever the probability exceeds a set level, additional capacity is needed and a signal is generated. Other, somewhat simpler embodiments may also be employed such as whenever the amount of work in the Virtual Queue exceeds a given level, a signal for more capacity is generated".
Tyber combined with Bembde discloses a system for simulating manufacturing workflows and allocating resources. Spearman discloses a system meant to manage optimization of planning manufacturing workflows. Each reference discloses means for simulating and analyzing manufacturing workflows. Extending the due date probability consideration as recorded in Spearman to the system of Tyber combined with Bembde is applicable as both references share the field of endeavor of manufacturing and production management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the due date probability consideration of Spearman and apply that to the system as taught in Tyber combined with Bembde. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that attention to due date timeliness would serve to be an important consideration for the optimization of Tyber combined with Bembde.
Claim 10
As to Claim 10, Tyber combined with Bembde and Spearman teaches all the limitations of Claim 9 as outlined above.
Tyber does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Bembde teaches:
The information processing method according to Claim 9, wherein, in the updating of the production plan, an excess portion of the job in which the occurrence probability of the due date delay exceeds an allowable value, that exceeds the allowable value, is cut out from the job, the cut excess portion is sequentially inserted between other jobs to re-execute the simulation,
In view of Fig. 7 in [0112], "When products to be subjected to manufacturing processes are arranged by buckets and slots as such, it is possible to easily manage when and which manufacturing process a specific product is subjected to, and additionally, in cases where a sudden plan change is requested due to a failure, delay, a customer request, an instruction from the administrator of the factory or the like, it is possible to generate a production plan in real time by reconfiguring the manufacturing order of products by bucket or by slot". See exemplarily in [0110], "The position of a slot in a manufacturing process of a product may be changed based on a failure, delay, a customer request, an instruction from the administrator of the factory, and the like. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 7, in a first manufacturing process 710, a product 4 is placed in a fourth slot 717, and a product 5 is placed in a fifth slot 718, but in a second manufacturing process 720, the product 4 is changed to a fifth slot 722, and the product 5 is changed to a fourth slot 721", where we reconfigure a given portion and place it within an earlier slot. Note that this can occur prior to date determination in [0119].
an array pattern in which the occurrence probability of the ... is less than or equal to the allowable value for all the jobs or an array pattern in which a maximum value of the occurrence probability of the ... for all the jobs is minimum is determined as an optimal array pattern, and the production plan is updated in association with the optimal array pattern.
Where we attempt to reduce failure probability for all jobs to be below a threshold in [0167], "After that, the production plan generating unit compares the specified failure probability of each manufacturing process with a predetermined failure probability criterion. The failure probability criterion may be a value (e.g., “25%,” “30%,” and the like) of a failure probability set in advance. In the case that the failure probability of the manufacturing process exceeds the predetermined failure probability criterion, the production plan generating unit determines an alternate manufacturing process to be executed instead of the manufacture step when a failure occurs".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the segmented job view and rearrangement of Bembde and apply that to the system as taught in Tyber. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 9.
Tyber combined with Bembde does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Spearman teaches:
due date delay
In [0102], "In other embodiments, as relating to step 790, the probability of late shop orders may be computed continuously. Whenever the probability exceeds a set level, additional capacity is needed and a signal is generated. Other, somewhat simpler embodiments may also be employed such as whenever the amount of work in the Virtual Queue exceeds a given level, a signal for more capacity is generated".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the due date probability consideration of Spearman and apply that to the system as taught in Tyber combined with Bembde. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/THEODORE XIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights