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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium, system, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 8 and 15 recite the limitations of
access initial supply chain plan data; evaluate an original number of time buckets for an initial supply chain plan to determine a quantity of time buckets that may be reduced in order to generate one or more reduced time bucket supply chain problems with no impairment on plan quality; solve a reduced time bucket supply chain problem in order to identify response buffers that contribute to an outcome of solving the reduced time bucket supply chain problem; generate a reduced scope supply chain problem incorporating the original number of time buckets and the identified response buffers; solve the reduced scope supply chain problem and generate a reduced scope supply chain plan; and control manufacturing equipment to produce products based, at least in part, on a solution to the reduced scope supply chain problem.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of accessing, generating, determining, evaluating, solving, and controlling data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, the claim language encompasses simply accessing data, determining to remove time buckets to solve a supply chain problem, generating a supply chain problem with respect to scope and solving it, and controlling equipment. Generating and solving a supply chain problem with respect to a supply chain plan has been done before the technological age and is not novel. Given a real world example, these steps are done in a supply chain department at any company. The claimed invention is merely automating a manual process. A user can easily generate a problem and solve it with respect to a supply chain plan. In addition, the limitation of controlling equipment is broad. Controlling equipment can merely mean telling someone to control the equipment or putting control instructions on a piece of paper and giving it to someone. Controlling equipment can also be done manually. The Applicant needs to elaborate on the control limitation.
The claims deal with supply chain systems which deal with suppliers, manufacturers, distribution centers, and retailers. (See para 0003) These make the
claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity
(business relations, sales activities or behaviors, interactions between people). It is
clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of computer, processor, software, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe variables about the plan such as plan quality. In addition, the dependent claims describe what the time buckets cover such as a planning horizon for the supply chain plan.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
System, computer, processor, memory
Claim 8 recites method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 8 further recites computer, processor, memory
Claim 15 recites non-transitory computer-readable medium and software
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic. The Applicant’s specification states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0023-0025.
When looking at the additional elements in combination. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (US20160155164A1) in further view Yarlagadda (US11017513B1).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claims 8 and 15, Ott teaches
A system, comprising: a supply chain system comprising one or more supply chain entities (See abstract-Systems and methods relate to managing production data for supply chain and manufacturing processes in an available-to-promise (ATP) context.) This shows a system. This is with respect to a supply chain entity as seen in para 0002-0005. (See fig. 1A which shows a system).
A method, comprising: accessing, by a computer comprising a processor and memory, an initial supply chain plan of one or more supply chain entities (See abstract-Systems and methods relate to managing production data for supply chain and manufacturing processes in an available-to-promise (ATP) context.) This shows a method. Figure 1a shows a system that includes a computer. The computer includes a processor and memory. This is with respect to a supply chain entity as seen in para 0002-0005. (See fig. 1A which shows a system).
A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodied with software, the software when executed: accesses an initial supply chain plan of one or more supply chain entities (See para 0014-In accordance with one or more exemplary embodiments, a system may include: one or more electronic databases stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media) This shows a memory. This is with respect to a supply chain entity as seen in para 0002-0005. (See fig. 1A which shows a system).
access initial supply chain plan data (See para 0006- obtaining, by the one or more computers, production data for the plurality of ATP products, the production data comprising data indicating one or more availability times and an associated finished output product quantity at each of the one or more availability times for each of the plurality of ATP products, wherein the availability times and associated quantity are based on projection data) This shows that initial plan is received based on projection data. This is with respect to making a quantity of product at a prescribed time.
evaluate an original number of time buckets for an initial supply chain plan to determine a quantity of time buckets (See para 0063- FIG. 4A, shows, according to an exemplary embodiment of a table 400 indicating the ATP product output quantities for products p1, p2, p3, p4 of the supply chain or manufacturing process depicted in FIGS. 3A & 3B. The quantities are listed for each of the products over four time periods or “time buckets”. This information can be included in the production data.) This shows based on the production data that is received, the system evaluates the number of time buckets such as 4 time buckets. The time buckets are with respect to making the quantity of products at a prescribed time.
that may be reduced in order to generate one or more reduced time bucket supply chain problems with no impairment on plan quality The time buckets for the different parts may be reduced based on customer orders that come in. The purpose of the art is to adjust the schedule/plan based on customer orders. The problem generated here is when a customer order comes in and the system needs to adjust the initial plan based on the customer order. (See para 0004- Therefore supply chain and manufacturing processes may need to be changed or adjusted in an efficient manner in order to more accurately respond to actual demand.) (See para 0045- The notifications can indicate that or what kind of adjustments to the manufacturing processes to meet demands of customer orders.) The plan quality is not impaired because the customer order is fulfilled.
solve a reduced time bucket supply chain problem in order to identify response buffers that contribute to an outcome of solving the reduced time bucket supply chain problem See fig. 4A which shows part 1 quantity is 30 for 3 time cycles/buckets, but the customer order (i.e. supply chain problem) wants 25 units of part 1 in 2 time cycles/buckets as seen here (See para 0068- Shown in FIG. 6 is a representation of customer order data 605 that includes a requested product, p0 req, a requested date or time d0 req, and a requested quantity q0 req. In this case, the customer order data 605 indicates a request for product p1 in two (2) time cycles/periods and a quantity request of twenty-five (25) units.) The system solves this by making adjustments to the original plan (See para 0070- In table 630 of FIG. 6, which is a marked up version of FIG. 4B, the slashes indicate a minimum of two time buckets or periods shows are necessary according to the aggregated ATP data for the supply chain and manufacturing processes to produce 25 units of product p1. That is table 630 shows that the supply chain and manufacturing processes have the capability and flexibility to produce 25 units of product p1 in two time periods.) The response buffers are anything that change with a plan adjustment such as quantity of products that are produced. This solves a reduced time problem to account for the customer order.
generate a reduced scope supply chain problem incorporating the original number of time buckets and the identified response buffers; When the system receives a customer order not only can the time bucket be reduced as seen above, but also the scope such as which parts the customer wants. For example, looking at figure 4A, the original plan shows making 10 parts for each part type in the first time bucket. A customer order may want 5 part types instead of 10 for the first time bucket. This still incorporates the original set of time buckets which is 1 out of 4 time buckets. In another example, the customer may want only one part type instead of all four part types which also reduces the scope.
solve the reduced scope supply chain problem and generate a reduced scope supply chain plan; The system would adjust the plan and make 5 instead of 10 part types for the first time bucket. (See fig. 5) (See abstract- Therefore, if requirements of a customer order cannot be met by the normally expected output of supply chain and manufacturing processes, the supply chain and manufacturing processes may be automatically adjusted to better meet or fulfill the customer order.) The adjustment of the original plan corresponds to the system solving the problem.
Even though the system teaches adjusting a manufacturing plan, it is not clear if it teaches controlling the manufacturing machine/equipment, however Yarlagadda teaches and control manufacturing equipment to produce products based, at least in part, on a solution to the reduced scope supply chain problem. (See col. 19-20 Based on the final detection determination 315 output or provided by the active sensor fusion algorithm, one or more systems may modify or adjust their operations….In addition, various types of machinery, equipment, devices, or other systems, such as manufacturing equipment, storage systems, supply chain logistics systems, security and safety systems, control systems, or other systems utilizing object detection, may receive and process the final detection determination 315 and modify their operations ) This teaches that the manufacturing equipment can modify their operations based on a change/determination. This is controlled by the system seen in the art.
Ott and Yarlagadda are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area of manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ott invention by incorporating the method of Yarlagadda because the system of Ott would become more sophisticated since it would add an additional step of controlling the manufacturing machinery when the manufacturing plan is adjusted. The controlling of the manufacturing machinery would add another analysis step to the system of Ott.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Ott and Yarlagadda teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 however Ott further teaches
wherein the reduced scope supply chain problem excludes non-responsive buffers that do not influence the outcome of solving the reduced time bucket supply chain problem. No matter what the customer order states such as reduced time or reduced quantity of the part types they want, adjusting the manufacturing plan does not include non-responsive buffers such as the manufacturing sequence itself to make the parts as seen in fig 3B. Sequences may overlap but there are no shortcuts in making the parts themselves. (See para 0038- In other words, the aggregation engine 30 may process production data or ATP data and determine one or more groups ATP products that share common or overlapping manufacturing sequences and materials and in which flexibilities of the supply chain and manufacturing processes can allow any one ATP product from a group ATP products to be produced instead of another one or more of ATP products from the same ATP group. ) A sequence for making the parts is also seen in fig. 9.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Ott and Yarlagadda teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 however Ott further teaches
wherein the time buckets cover a planning horizon of the initial supply chain plan. Based on the production data/projection data, the time buckets cover a planning horizon for the manufacture process of parts as seen in fig. 4A. (See para 0006- In the accordance with exemplary embodiments, a method may include: obtaining, by the one or more computers, production data for the plurality of ATP products, the production data comprising data indicating one or more availability times and an associated finished output product quantity at each of the one or more availability times for each of the plurality of ATP products, wherein the availability times and associated quantity are based on projection data; generating, by the one or more computers, aggregated ATP data, the aggregated ATP data comprising data indicating for each of one or more time periods: one or more ATP product groups, )
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Ott and Yarlagadda teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 however Ott further teaches
wherein the computer is configured to generate the reduced scope supply chain plan with a lower runtime than an original run with a full scope of buffers. The customer can specify what they want in their order and when. For example, the customer order could call for less part types than the initial plan in fig. 4A (i.e. original run with full scope of buffers such as full quantity of products) and want them in 1 time cycle instead of 4. The manufacturing process would have a lower runtime if the required runtime is 1 compared to 4. The system tries to adjust to the customer orders for fulfillment.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Ott and Yarlagadda teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 however Ott further teaches
wherein the response buffers comprise a set of buffers which receive at least one supply or consumption activity in the supply chain plan. The response buffers correspond to the quantity of parts made. They receive a supply activity such as receiving a supply of raw materials for the parts to be made. (See para 0036- For example, production route data may indicate the general or specific sequence of manufacturing processes, raw materials needed, and intermediate goods produced, in the manufacture of an ATP product.).
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (US20160155164A1) in further view Yarlagadda (US11017513B1) in further view of Nakhjavani (US20190005158A1).
Regarding claims 3 and similarly claims 10 and 17, Ott and Yarlagadda teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, however they do not teach
wherein the plan quality is determined based on one or more of: fill rate accuracy, resource utilization accuracy and inventory profiles.
However Nakhjavani teaches wherein the plan quality is determined based on one or more of: fill rate accuracy, resource utilization accuracy and inventory profiles. (See abstract- In response to determining that the part weight or the resource use for a configuration is unacceptable, the method iteratively edits the configuration, refines the part topology to generate an updated configuration, and analyzes the selected manufacturing process to estimate the resource use, until an optimized configuration is identified. The method outputs a file for the optimized configuration, enabling manufacturing of the part using the part design.) This teaches resource utilization accuracy since the system is trying to optimize the resource used to manufacture a part. The resource use needs to be acceptable (i.e. accurate).
Ott and Nakhjavani are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area of manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ott invention by incorporating the method of Nakhjavani because the system of Ott would also have a further analysis step of making sure the resources used to make the parts are being used optimally. This would ensure the manufacturing process is efficient with respect to making customer orders.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (US20160155164A1) in further view Yarlagadda (US11017513B1) in further view of Beal (20210148891).
Regarding claims 7 and similarly claims 14, Ott and Yarlagadda teach the limitations of claims 1 and 8, however they do not teach meat processing, however Beal teaches
wherein at least one of the one or more supply chain entities is a meat processing entity. (See para 0057- In another example, genotypic data 140 may be comprised of genomic information about an animal. In one embodiment, genomic data 140 may be comprised of, for example, data from: personal communication with animal owner, feedlot owner, animal product processing facility, meat packing facility, retail staff, etc.;) This shows meat processing entity.
Ott and Beal are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area of model optimization techniques and they both belong to classification G06Q10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ott's invention by incorporating the method of Beal because Ott can also use machine learning to apply modifications to the supply chain. Machine learning would help the art of Ott handle complex data sets. Machine learning would also making more accurate supply chain modifications since machine learning algorithms become more accurate over time. This would make the art of Ott
more sophisticated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Shankdhar (US11769092B1) Discloses a system and method are disclosed including a planner having a processor and memory. The planner models a supply chain network over a planning horizon having one or more time buckets and a production line to produce one or more products using one or more campaign operations and one or more campaignable resources.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights