Patent Application 17914256 - COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD FOR PLANNING ANDOR

Title: COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD FOR PLANNING AND/OR CONTROLLING A PRODUCTION BY A PRODUCTION SYSTEM, AND PRODUCTION PLANNING AND/OR CONTROL SYSTEM
Application Information

Invention Title: COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD FOR PLANNING AND/OR CONTROLLING A PRODUCTION BY A PRODUCTION SYSTEM, AND PRODUCTION PLANNING AND/OR CONTROL SYSTEM
Application Number: 17914256
Submission Date: 2025-05-16T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2022-09-23T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2022-09-23T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 705
National Sub-Class: 007220
Examiner Employee Number: 83659
Art Unit: 3624
Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 0
Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:
US 0185943🔗
Office Action Text


    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 .
DETAILED ACTION
 
1.         This Final Office action is in reply to the Applicant amendment filed on 10 February 2025.
2.         Claims 1-15 have been amended.  Dependent Claim 2 has been cancelled.
3.         Claims 1, 3-15 are currently pending and have been examined.  

Response to Amendment

In the previous office action, Claims 1-15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea). Applicants have not amended now Claims 1, 3-15 to provide statutory support and the rejection is maintained.
In the previous office action, Claims 1-15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement and 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention. Applicants have not amended now Claims 1, 3-15 and these rejections are maintained.
Applicants’ amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection for adding new matter.  See below new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a).


Response to Arguments

Applicants’ arguments filed 10 February 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.  In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1, 3-15, Applicants argue that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.  Examiner respectfully disagrees.  Still commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update:  Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, the Examiner details the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the below rejection with further explanation as outlined and reproduced in Applicants’ mis-labeled/mis-enumerated/mis-sequential Arguments/Remarks pages 8-15.  Applicants argue that as amended for now Claims 1, 3-15, Applicants state (emphasized in italics):
III. 
Step 1 that Claim 1 is a “method” claim and now, as amended, Claim 13 is now an independent “system” claim and [under Step 2A, Prong 1]- “The Claim Does not Recite Mental Processes, Mathematic Concepts, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.  The distinction has been amended to now include independent method Claim 1 and now independent Claim 13 as a system claim.  However, although now amended for independent Claim 1 to recite “by at/the least one computer”, there is no actual “computer” architecture support recited in the instant specification to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the vague and indefinite claim limitations as a person could be performing these steps in a manual/mental process with simple pencil/pen to paper which now do not support an enablement requirement and is outlined in the below new grounds of rejection under this statute.  Regarding now independent and amended “system” Claim 13, the “at least one processor” has no additional computer architecture support but with only some vague sentence reference recited in only paragraph 004 as “…classic scheduling algorithms such as multiprocessor scheduling are known, but they can only be applied to simplified models” (emphasis added) which is recited as a background description and is not recited anywhere else in the instant specification to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to properly utilize a “at least one processor” which now do not support an enablement requirement and is outlined in the below grounds of rejection under this statute. Further, the claims’ “controlling” limitation steps are recited in the instant specification as “a human controller/controlling” in at least paragraphs 5, 12, 13, 17, 24, 35. (see also below maintained rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (b)).  
Step 2A, Prong 1-The Claim Does Not Recite Mental Processes, Mathematic Concepts, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity As a first step to the Alice/Mayo analysis, Examiners must “evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.” MPEP § 2106.04(I1I(A).  The Examiner respectfully disagrees.  These claims fall under the categories: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations, (i.e., “optimization; cost functions; parameters; constraints; ranking, etc ”); (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; following rules or instructions (i.e., organizing the material requirements in the production sections according to their impact on an optimization of a cost function of the production; requirement deadline; production requirement/planning), and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (i.e., “obtaining, organizing, selecting simulating, controlling, etc.”).  See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one.    Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.  The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because Claims 1, 3-15 do not have any proper computer architecture support for these also vague and indefinite claim limitations.  As stated above, and although now amended for independent Claim 1 to recite “by at/the least one computer”, there is no actual “computer” architecture support recited in the instant specification to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to refer and perform the vague and indefinite claim limitations as a person could be performing these steps in a manual/mental process with simple pencil/pen to paper which now do not support an enablement requirement and is outlined in the below grounds of rejection under this statute.  The claims’ “controlling” limitation steps are recited in the instant specification as “a human controller” in at least paragraphs 5, 12, 13, 17, 24, 35.  Regarding now independent and amended “system” Claim 13, the “at least one processor” has no additional computer architecture support recited in the instant specification and is mentioned in only paragraph 004 as “…classic scheduling algorithms such as multiprocessor scheduling are known, but they can only be applied to simplified models” which is recited as a background description and is not recited anywhere else in the instant specification to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to properly utilize a “processor” which now do not support an enablement requirement and is outlined in the below rejection under this statute. (see also below maintained rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (b)).
 Step 2A, Prong 2-Even if the claims were to recite a judicial exception, the claims integrate that exception into a practical application”.  However the Examiner respectfully disagrees.  With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.  Independent Claims 1, 13 recite generally to, “controlling a production by a real production system” (preamble Claim 1).  The claims do not contain computer architecture components (additional elements) that provide an improvement to computer functionality/technology nor integrates the judicial exception into a practical application with significantly more because at this step of the analysis, the claims previously failed Step 1 for not being proper statutory categories of invention.  Applicants continue to state that an improvement to technology and technical solution is “expressly-identified…in the technological field of computer-controlled production systems…therefor improve the accuracy and efficiency of such computer-controlled production systems/Improvement—Time Scale…improving the time horizon of the computer predictions”.  Examiner disagrees because there is no substantial and creditable support from at least the instant specification or the instant claims for these statements, particularly since they are not specifically and definitely recited as such in the claims.  Additionally, Applicants vaguely and improperly refer to the [Supreme Court] decision “Diamond v. Diehr” for ‘to cure natural or synthetic rubber…one does not need a ‘computer’ to cure natural or synthetic rubber’” as applying to Applicants’ claimed invention.  This presidential court decision and subject matter is not applicable nor related to the vague subject matter of Applicants’ instant application.  Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.  The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner (Applicants’ ‘human controller’—see at least paragraphs 5, 12, 13, 17, 24, 35 of Applicants’ instant specification) to implement the abstract idea without utilizing proper computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology nor is the judicial exception not integrated into a practical application, and thus are ineligible.

IV.  Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a):  Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. In particular, the Office Action states that claims 1-15 “are not focused to statutory categories of invention,” that Claims 1 and 13 confusingly recite a method and/or system claim, and that “there are no additional computer architecture components for support.;...the rejection for alleged lack of enablement is incomplete” As amended independent Claims 1, 13, the distinction has been amended to now include independent method Claim 1 and now independent Claim 13 as a system claim.  However, although now amended for independent Claim 1 to recite “by at/the least one computer”, there is no actual and specific “computer” architecture support recited in the instant claims/specification to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the vague and indefinite claim limitations as a person could be performing these steps in a manual/mental process with simple pencil/pen to paper which now do not support an enablement requirement and is outlined in the below maintained grounds of rejection under this statute.  Regarding now independent and amended “system” Claim 13, the “at least one processor” has no additional computer architecture support recited in the instant specification and is recited in only paragraph 004 as “…classic scheduling algorithms such as multiprocessor scheduling are known, but they can only be applied to simplified models” which is recited as a background description and is not recited anywhere else in the instant specification to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to properly utilize a “at least one processor” which do not support an enablement requirement and is outlined in the below grounds of rejection under this statute.  Merely stating a “at least one computer; at least one processor” without any computer architecture component support for at least these independent claims is insufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the proposed instant claimed invention and also raises a written description requirement for added new matter and is outlined in the below new grounds of rejection under these statutes. The claims’ “controlling” limitation steps are recited and defined in the instant specification as “a human controller” in at least paragraphs 5, 12, 13, 17, 24, 35.  As now arranged and amended, the claims still contain subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention and as maintained by the Examiner, the disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without proper computer architecture and non-transitory computer readable media components, which are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but are not included in the claims and instant specification. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).  Clarification is still required and these rejections are maintained.

	V.  Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. In particular, Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. In particular,
the Office Action states the claim language “[is] not definite and specific limitations as to exactly and specifically how one of ordinary skill in the art could make definite, accurate, and specific determination of scale, detail, measurement, and whether or how these claim step limitations actually provide accurate and definite claim results....the [identified] phrase limitations amount to non-functional descriptive material that do not functionally alter the claimed method.”  Regarding the many indefinite phrase limitations listed in the below rejection, Applicants have not amended the previous recited claims to remove or clarify these indefinite phrase limitations and non-functional descriptive/labeled and subjective phrases preceding and following the claim limitations as one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret. The following indefinite phrase limitations of: “and/or; real; adjusting; impact; wherein; is positive; controlling; whether; simulating; carrying out; negative; check/checking; ranking; in such a way; taking into account; providing; situation ” are not definite and specific limitations as to exactly and specifically how one of ordinary skill in the art could make definite, accurate, and specific determination of scale, detail, measurement, and whether or how these indefinite claim step limitations actually provide accurate and definite claim results.  For example, which limitation following “and/or” is to be considered to be executed as a claim result?  Are all the limitations included or is it one limitation, i.e., and…or?  What happens after the limitation “whether”?  The preceding phrase limitations depend on “whether” or not the following phrase limitations are definite to produce a tangible result for the claims.  In other words, what happens if the preceding phrase limitations do not provide a result?  Is there an alternative process to address this most likely issue?  Also, specifically how or what is “real” and to specifically how or what is this label tangible?    Specifically how are the “adjusting; controlling; simulating; carrying out; check/checking; ranking taking into account; providing” limitations specifically defined and supported “in such a way”?   The claims’ “controlling” limitation steps are recited and defined in the instant specification as performed by “a human controller” in at least paragraphs 5, 12, 13, 17, 24, 35.  As now amended, Claims 1, 3-12 recite “by at/the least one computer” and now as amended, Claims 13-15 recite “at/the least one processor”.  There is no specific and definite “computer” architecture support recited in the instant specification to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the vague and indefinite claim limitations as a person could be performing these steps in a manual/mental process with simple pencil/pen to paper which do not support an enablement requirement and raises a written description requirement for added new matter and is outlined in the below new grounds of rejection under this statute.  There are only the multiple statements of “computer-implemented method” and certainly no recitation of a “processor” within the instant specification, indicating the admission of new matter into the claims.  Additionally, the Examiner notes that the above indefinite phrase limitations amount to non-functional descriptive, labeled and subjective material that do not functionally alter the claimed method.  The recited method steps would be performed in the same manner regardless of how or what data is contained in “and/or; adjusting; impact; wherein; is positive; real; controlling; whether; simulating; carrying out; negative; check/checking; ranking; in such a way; taking into account; providing; situation”.  Thus, the prior art and the claimed invention have identical structure and the claimed descriptive material is insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.  see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2106.  For examination purposes, the Examiner will consider these indefinite phrase limitations with little to no patentable weight and these rejections are maintained.
VI. Claim Objections
Claims 13-15 stand objected to because they are “confusingly dependent.” Office Action, p.10.
Applicant has amended Claim 13 so that it does not refer to claim 1, therefore rendering the objection moot, and Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal of this objection.  The Examiner agrees and withdraws this objection for Claim 13.
As to the blanket statements that the specification and claims are generally narrative and indefinite, and the objections with respect to the use of “‘and/or” in the title and abstract, Applicant has addressed these conclusory objections or rejections above, and submits that the present objections are unsupported for the same reasons. As such, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the objections.  The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains this objection as addressed above and below.
For the purposes of advancing prosecution, Applicant has amended the specification to include section titles.  The Examiner acknowledges this particular amendment to minorly correct the instant specification.

Applicants submit that: (2) Wang et al. (Wang) (US2017/0185943) does not teach or suggest in amended Claim 1: Wang fails to disclose at least performing simulated checks, simulated reservations, or adjusting simulated values as a result of the simulated checks. [see Remarks pages 16-17].  With regard to argument (2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.  These specific claim limitations are not recited as such in now amended Claims 1, 3-15.  These limitations are broadly summarized in the below claim limitations and specifically cited from the Examiner as anticipated by Wang.  Additionally, Applicants’ arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.  Also, Applicants’ arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.  It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.  The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).  For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.


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, 3-15 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.
The claims as a whole recite certain groupings characteristic of an abstract idea (see “USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance issued January 7, 2019”, citing “Federal Register 50 Vol 84 No 4 Monday January 7 2019”, p.51, 3rd column to p.53 1st column, p.54 further corroborated by USPTO’s “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), Advanced Module PowerPoint Slides” Slide 17) and the October 2019 Update:  Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”) and the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples Update and are analyzed in the following step process:

		Step 1: Claims 1, 3-15 are not focused to statutory categories of invention.  The independent Claims 1, 13 do not have any proper computer architecture component support for the vague and indefinite claim limitations (see below rejections under 35 U.S.C. §’s 112 (a) (b)).  Although now amended for independent Claim 1 to recite “by at/the least one computer”, there is no actual “computer” architecture support recited in the instant specification to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the vague and indefinite claim limitations as a person could be performing these steps in a manual/mental process with simple pencil/pen to paper.  Regarding now independent and amended Claim 13, the “at least one processor” has no additional computer architecture support recited in the instant specification to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to properly utilize a “processor”.  (see also below maintained rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (b)).    Despite this continued failure to pass Step 1 of this analysis, the Examiner proceeds to the next steps.
Step 2A:  Prong One: Claims 1, 3-15 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.  There is no additional and specific information disclosed within the claims as to specifically how these steps are specifically defined.  This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims encompass processing information by:

“obtaining, by at least one computer, data comprising real material requirements of the real production sections;
organizing, by the at least one computer, the real material requirements in the real production sections into a dataset in an order according to their impact on an optimization of a cost function of the real production system;
selecting, by the at least one computer, one of the material requirements based on the order of the dataset projecting the selected material requirement onto materials in preceding production sections which are required for the production in the production section of the selected material requirement, and adjusting at least one requirement quantity and/or one requirement deadline of the respective materials; 
controlling, by the at least one computer, the production lines depending on at least the adjusted requirement quantity and/or the requirement deadline and performing a first check to determine whether the adjusted requirement quantity of the respective materials is sufficient for the selected material requirement, wherein if the first check is positive the respective materials are reserved for the production system, and/or the selected material requirement is implemented, and a further material requirement based on the order of the dataset is selected;
simulating, by the at least one computer, a simulated production system, a simulated production planning, and/or a simulated production control based on the real production system, the real production planning, and /or the real production control;
controlling at least one simulated production line of the simulated production system depending on at least a simulated adjusted requirement quantity and/or a simulated requirement deadline;
selecting simulated material requirements based on the order of the dataset, and performing a simulated first check to determine whether the simulated adjusted requirement quantity of the respective simulated materials is sufficient for a selected simulated material requirement, wherein in response to the first check being positive, the respective simulated materials are reserved for a simulated production system, and the selected simulated material requirement is implemented; and
controlling, by the at least one computer, the production lines depending on the simulation” 
 
	The claims as a whole recite certain groupings characteristic of an abstract idea (see “USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance issued January 7, 2019”, citing “Federal Register 50 Vol 84 No 4 Monday January 7 2019”, p.51, 3rd column to p.53 1st column, p.54 further corroborated by USPTO’s “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), Advanced Module PowerPoint Slides” Slide 17), the October 2019 Update:  Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”), and July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. These claims fall under the categories: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations, i.e., “optimization; cost functions; parameters; constraints; ranking, etc ”; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; following rules or instructions), i.e., organizing the material requirements in the production sections according to their impact on an optimization of a cost function of the production; requirement deadline; production requirement/planning, and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), i.e., “obtaining, organizing, selecting simulating, controlling, etc.”.  See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one.  Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.  The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter. 
	Prong Two:  Claims 1, 3-15: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.  Independent Claims 1, 13 recite the abstract idea (judicial exception) generally to, “controlling a production by a real production system”.  The claims do not contain computer architecture components (additional elements) that provide an improvement to computer functionality/technology nor integrates the judicial exception into a practical application with significantly more because at this step of the analysis, the claims failed Step 1 for not being a proper statutory category of invention.  Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.  The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner (human controller) to implement the abstract idea without utilizing proper computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), Claims 1, 3-15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the proposed additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.  The claims do not contain computer architecture components (additional elements) that provide an improvement to computer functionality/technology nor integrates the judicial exception into a practical application with significantly more because at this step of the analysis, the claims failed Step 1 of this analysis for not being a proper statutory category of invention.  Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. There is no indication that any combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology much less provides at least some computer enabled support for the claim/specification limitations.  Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.  The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. 
Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of a mechanism used for accomplishing the result.  Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, no additional claim element(s) provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1, 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112

The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.

The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

Claims 1, 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.  The claim(s) contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1, 3-15 are not focused to statutory categories of invention.  Primarily, there are no additional computer architecture components for support in the claims or instant specification to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to electronically perform the broad and indefinitely recited claim limitations, meaning a person could be performing the step limitations manually via a chalkboard/whiteboard/overhead projector/sign language/verbal speech.  Correction/clarification is required.
Broadley recited and indefinite Claims 1, 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling.  The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without proper computer architecture and non-transitory computer readable media components, which are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claims and instant specification. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Clarification is required.
Claims 1, 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.  Claims 1, 3-12 recite “by at/the least one computer” within the claim step limitations.  There is no positive recitation of a “computer” with accompanying computer architecture components recited in the instant specification to support this newly added limitation.  Claims 13-15 recite “at/the least one processor”.  There is no positive recitation of a “processor” with accompanying computer architecture components recited in the instant specification to support this newly added limitation.  These newly added limitations also raise the issue of new matter introduced to the instant application.  Correction/clarification is required.

The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b)  CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

Claims 1, 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA  the applicant regards as the invention.
	
	 Broadly recited Claims 1, 3-15 are rejected for indefinite claim language:  Regarding the many indefinite phrase limitations listed in the below rejection, Applicants have not amended the previous recited claims to remove or clarify these indefinite phrase limitations and non-functional descriptive/labeled and subjective phrases preceding and following the claim limitations as one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret. The following indefinite phrase limitations of: “and/or; real; adjusting; impact; wherein; is positive; controlling; whether; simulating; carrying out; negative; check/checking; ranking; in such a way; taking into account; providing; situation ” are not definite and specific limitations as to exactly and specifically how one of ordinary skill in the art could make definite, accurate, and specific determination of scale, detail, measurement, and whether or how these indefinite claim step limitations actually provide accurate and definite claim results.  For example, which limitation following “and/or” is to be considered to be executed as a claim result?  Are all the limitations included or is it one limitation, i.e., and…or?  What happens after the limitation “whether”?  The preceding phrase limitations depend on “whether” or not the following phrase limitations are definite to produce a tangible result for the claims.  In other words, what happens if the preceding phrase limitations do not provide a result?  Is there an alternative process to address this most likely issue?  Also, specifically how or what is “real” and to specifically how or what is this label tangible and further defined?    Specifically how are the “adjusting; controlling; simulating; carrying out; check/checking; ranking taking into account; providing” limitations specifically defined and supported “in such a way”?   The claims’ “controlling” limitation steps are recited and defined in the instant specification as performed by “a human controller” in at least paragraphs 5, 12, 13, 17, 24, 35 and not by computer architecture components to support these indefinite claim limitations.  As now amended, Claims 1, 3-12 recite “by at/the least one computer” and now as amended, Claims 13-15 recite “at/the least one processor”.  There is no specific and definite “computer” architecture support recited in the instant specification to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the vague and indefinite claim limitations as a person could be performing these steps in a manual/mental process with simple pencil/pen to paper which do not support an enablement requirement and raises a written description requirement for added new matter and is outlined in the below new grounds of rejection under this statute.  There are only the multiple statements of “computer-implemented method” and certainly no recitation of a “processor” within the instant specification, indicating the admission of new matter into the claims.  Additionally, the Examiner notes that the above indefinite phrase limitations amount to non-functional descriptive, labeled and subjective material that do not functionally alter the claimed method.  The recited method steps would be performed in the same manner regardless of how or what data is contained in “and/or; adjusting; impact; wherein; is positive; real; controlling; whether; simulating; carrying out; negative; check/checking; ranking; in such a way; taking into account; providing; situation”.  Thus, the prior art and the claimed invention have identical structure and the claimed descriptive material is insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.  see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2106.  For examination purposes, these indefinite claim phrases will be given little to no patentable weight.  Clarification/correction is required.

Broadly recited Claims 1, 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.  The claims and specification are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice.  They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.  Also, the instant Specification is a clear example of this and objected/rejected.  Applicants should review and correct the entire instant application for these grammatical and idiomatic errors.  Clarification is required.

Claim/Specification/Abstract/Title of Invention Objections

The instant Specification is objected to as being generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice.  It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.  Applicants should review and correct the entire instant application for these grammatical and idiomatic errors.  Correction and clarification are required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive because of the above noted indefinite phrase limitation of “and/or”.  A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the above noted indefinite phrase limitation of “and/or”.  Correction is required.  See MPEP § 608.01(b).



Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102

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, 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Wang) (US2017/0185943).

With regard to Claims 1, 3-15, Wang teaches a computer-implemented method/system for controlling a production by a real production system (a system includes means for receiving a production order for a product to be produced using human resources, machine resources, and inventory materials, and subject to a production deadline. The system includes means for retrieving, from a human resources database in which individual human resources are characterized based on skill level, efficiency level, cost, and schedule availability, at least one human resource sufficient to fulfill the production order. The system includes means for retrieving, from a machine resources database in which individual machine resources are characterized based on production level, machine availability, and cost, at least one machine resource sufficient to fulfill the production order. The system includes means for retrieving, from an inventory database in which inventory materials are characterized based on inventory availability and cost, sufficient inventory materials to fulfill the production order. The system includes means for executing a linear programming model to define a production schedule using at least one selected human resource selected from the at least one human resource, at least one selected machine resource from the at least one machine resource, and selected inventory materials from the sufficient inventory materials to complete the production order by the production deadline) comprising a plurality of real production sections and production lines (The present description provides data analysis to predict and control production schedules. The data analysis relies on available data characterizing the available raw materials, machine resources (e.g., maintenance requirements and available capacity levels for production machinery), and human resources (e.g., varying skill sets and efficiency levels of individual employees with respect to individual relevant skills), as well as intra-production process dependencies, and other production factors; computer program product is tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and includes instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause at least one computing device to receive a production order for a product to be produced using human resources, machine resources, and inventory materials, and subject to a production deadline) (see at least paragraphs 7-11), the method/system comprising: the steps

obtaining, by at least one computer, data comprising real material requirements (selected inventory materials from the sufficient inventory materials to complete the production order by the production deadline) of the production sections (a computer program product is tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and includes instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause at least one computing device to receive a production order for a product to be produced using human resources, machine resources, and inventory materials, and subject to a production deadline. The instructions, when executed, are further configured to cause at least one computing device to retrieve, from a human resources database in which individual human resources are characterized based on skill level, efficiency level, cost, and schedule availability, at least one human resource sufficient to fulfill the production order. The instructions, when executed, are further configured to cause at least one computing device to retrieve, from a machine resources database in which individual machine resources are characterized based on production level, machine availability, and cost, at least one machine resource sufficient to fulfill the production order. The instructions, when executed, are further configured to cause at least one computing device to retrieve, from an inventory database in which inventory materials are characterized based on inventory availability and cost, sufficient inventory materials to fulfill the production order. The instructions, when executed, are further configured to cause at least one computing device to execute a linear programming model to define a production schedule using at least one selected human resource selected from the at least one human resource, at least one selected machine resource from the at least one machine resource, and selected inventory materials from the sufficient inventory materials to complete the production order by the production deadline) (see at least paragraphs 7-11);

organizing, by the at least one computer, the real material requirements in the production sections into a dataset (each of the verifiers 118-122 is configured to analyze a production order being considered, along with associated data, to determine which data to retrieve from corresponding databases 108-112) in an order according to their impact on an optimization (production schedule optimizer 124) of a cost function of the production system (the machine resources verifier 122 may analyze the production order in question to determine a range of types of machines, or specific machines, that may be suitable for completing the production order. For example, a slower, less-operationally expensive machine may or may not be preferable to a higher cost, higher speed (or higher reliability) machine. Again, the various combinations of such potential solutions, combined with similar combinations obtained by the inventory verifier 118 and the human resources verifier 120, result in a potentially large solution space to be explored by the production schedule optimizer 124) (see at least paragraphs 8, 34-47, Abstract); 

selecting, by at least one computer, one of the material requirements based on the order of the dataset (wherein the production constraints include compliance with a production dependency of operations in the production schedule; each of the verifiers 118-122 is configured to analyze a production order being considered, along with associated data, to determine which data to retrieve from corresponding databases 108-112), projecting the selected material requirement onto materials in preceding production sections which are required for the production in the production section of the selected material requirement (inventory materials), and adjusting at least one requirement quantity and/or one requirement deadline of the respective materials (At least one human resource sufficient to fulfill a received production order may be retrieved from a human resources database in which individual human resources are characterized based on skill level, efficiency level, cost, and schedule availability. At least one machine resource sufficient to fulfill the production order may be retrieved from a machine resources database in which individual machine resources are characterized based on production level, machine availability, and cost. Sufficient inventory materials to fulfill the production order may be retrieved from an inventory database in which inventory materials are characterized based on inventory availability and cost. A linear programming model may be executed to define a production schedule using at least one selected human resource selected from the at least one human resource, at least one selected machine resource from the at least one machine resource, and selected inventory materials from the sufficient inventory materials to complete the production order by a production deadline) (see at least paragraphs 7-11, Claim 7, Abstract);

controlling, by the at least one computer, the production lines (In all such implementations, any two or more operations or sub-operations may be executed in a partially or completely overlapping or parallel manner, or in a nested, iterative, looped, or branched fashion) depending on at least the adjusted requirement quantity and/or the requirement deadline and performing a first check to determine whether the adjusted requirement quantity of the respective materials is sufficient for the selected material requirement, wherein if the first check is positive the respective materials are reserved for the production system, and the selected material requirement is implemented, and a further material requirement based on the order of the dataset is selected (a linear programming model is executed to define a production schedule using at least one selected human resource selected from the at least one human resource, at least one selected machine resource from the at least one machine resource, and selected inventory materials from the sufficient inventory materials, to thereby define the production schedule as completing the production order by the production deadline (210). For example, the production schedule optimizer 124 may be configured to utilize all resource-related data obtained by the verifiers 118, 122, to thereby generate the optimized production schedule) (see at least paragraphs 52-57, Abstract);

simulating (data analysis to predict and control production schedules; calculating; characterized; based on an analysis), by the at least one computer, a production system, simulated production planning, and/or a simulated production control based on the real production system, the real production planning, and/or the real production control (receiving a production order for a product to be produced using human resources, machine resources, and inventory materials, and subject to a production deadline. The method includes retrieving, from a human resources database in which individual human resources are characterized based on skill level, efficiency level, cost, and schedule availability, at least one human resource sufficient to fulfill the production order. The method includes retrieving, from a machine resources database in which individual machine resources are characterized based on production level, machine availability, and cost, at least one machine resource sufficient to fulfill the production order. The method includes retrieving, from an inventory database in which inventory materials are characterized based on inventory availability and cost, sufficient inventory materials to fulfill the production order. The method includes executing a linear programming model to define a production schedule using at least one selected human resource selected from the at least one human resource, at least one selected machine resource from the at least one machine resource, and selected inventory materials from the sufficient inventory materials to complete the production order by the production deadline) (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract);

controlling at least one simulated production line of the simulated production system depending on at least a simulated adjusted requirement quantity and/or a simulated requirement deadline (executing a linear programming model to define a production schedule using at least one selected human resource selected from the at least one human resource, at least one selected machine resource from the at least one machine resource, and selected inventory materials from the sufficient inventory materials to complete the production order by the production deadline.) (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract);

selecting simulated material requirements based on the order of the dataset (The data analysis relies on available data characterizing the available raw materials, machine resources (e.g., maintenance requirements and available capacity levels for production machinery), and human resources (e.g., varying skill sets and efficiency levels of individual employees with respect to individual relevant skills), as well as intra-production process dependencies, and other production factors), and performing a simulated first check to determine whether the simulated adjusted requirement quantity of the respective simulated materials is sufficient for a selected simulated material requirement (retrieving, from an inventory database in which inventory materials are characterized based on inventory availability and cost, sufficient inventory materials to fulfill the production order), wherein in response to the first check being positive, the respective simulated materials are reserved for a simulated production system, and the selected simulated material requirement is implemented (a computer program product is tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and includes instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause at least one computing device to receive a production order for a product to be produced using human resources, machine resources, and inventory materials, and subject to a production deadline. The instructions, when executed, are further configured to cause at least one computing device to retrieve, from a human resources database in which individual human resources are characterized based on skill level, efficiency level, cost, and schedule availability, at least one human resource sufficient to fulfill the production order. The instructions, when executed, are further configured to cause at least one computing device to retrieve, from a machine resources database in which individual machine resources are characterized based on production level, machine availability, and cost, at least one machine resource sufficient to fulfill the production order. The instructions, when executed, are further configured to cause at least one computing device to retrieve, from an inventory database in which inventory materials are characterized based on inventory availability and cost, sufficient inventory materials to fulfill the production order. The instructions, when executed, are further configured to cause at least one computing device to execute a linear programming model to define a production schedule using at least one selected human resource selected from the at least one human resource, at least one selected machine resource from the at least one machine resource, and selected inventory materials from the sufficient inventory materials to complete the production order by the production deadline) (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract); 

controlling (controlling; control), by the at least one computer, the production lines depending on the simulation (provides data analysis to predict and control production schedules. The data analysis relies on available data characterizing the available raw materials, machine resources (e.g., maintenance requirements and available capacity levels for production machinery), and human resources (e.g., varying skill sets and efficiency levels of individual employees with respect to individual relevant skills), as well as intra-production process dependencies, and other production factors) (see at least paragraphs 5-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract); 

performing a first check to determine whether the adjusted requirement quantity of the respective materials is sufficient for the respectively selected material requirement, wherein if the first check is positive the respective materials are reserved for the production system, and/or the selected material requirement is implemented, and a further material requirement that is compliant is selected (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract).

With regard to Claim 3, Wang teaches wherein the data comprise production parameters, optimality criteria and/or constraints, wherein the production parameters comprise worker situation, machine capabilities, material availabilities, material buffers and/or supplier capacities, the optimality criteria comprise maximum utilization of machines and/or workers, minimization of delays, lowest stock levels and/or minimization of material flows and the constraints comprise priorities of material requirements, maximum warehouse and/or material buffer sizes, transport conditions, planning horizon, and/or supplier capacities (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract).

With regard to Claim 4, Wang teaches:
simulating, by the at least one computer, a shift operation of workers (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract);
assigning workers to the real production lines based on the simulated shift operation (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract); 
carrying out any change in the assignment of workers, by the at least one computer, to the production lines is carried out at least depending on the material requirements and/or material stocks (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract).

With regard to Claim 5, Wang teaches performing a second check in response to the first check being negative, wherein the second check comprises checking whether materials lacking for the material requirements can be delivered in compliance with the requirement deadline (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract);
ordering a delivery is ordered and reserving the delivered materials in response to the second check being positive, and reserving a further material requirement in response to the second check being negative (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract).

With regard to Claim 6, Wang teaches: ranking, by the at least one computer, the material requirements in the production sections in such a way that slack times of the production system are optimized (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract).

With regard to Claim 7, Wang teaches: ranking, by the at least one computer, the material requirements in the production sections in such a way that, when a workflow plan of the production system is optimized, a fulfilment of the material requirements is combined with a maximization of production capacity utilization (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract).

With regard to Claim 8, Wang teaches taking into account, by the at least one computer, a production duration for the material requirements when adjusting the requirement deadline and/or the material requirement depending on respective line capacities on the real production lines (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract).

With regard to Claim 9, Wang teaches wherein the real production system comprises material buffers between the production sections, wherein the method further comprises reducing the material requirements depending on the material buffers (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claims 7, 8, Abstract).

With regard to Claim 10, Wang teaches: 
generating, by the at least one computer, a data structure from the material requirements obtained, which comprises at least material type, requirement quantity and requirement deadline for each production section wherein the data structure comprises an index structure by which entries in the data structure are referenced among one another, wherein the production lines are assigned, workers are distributed, and/or supplier orders generated based on the data structure (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract).

With regard to Claim 11, Wang teaches: providing, by the at least one computer, open-loop and/or closed-loop control-related outputs and/or informational outputs, wherein the open-loop and/or closed-loop control-related outputs comprise production sequences, worker assignment and/or supplier orders and informational outputs comprise material requirements coverage, completion dates, capacity utilization, bottlenecks, critical paths, and/or temporal progression of the production system (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract).

With regard to Claim 12, Wang teaches: providing, by the at least one computer, a production sequence (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 52-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract).

With regard to Claim 13, Wang teaches a production planning and/or control system comprising a processing unit configured to carry out the method as according to claim 1 (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 49-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract).

With regard to Claim 14, Wang teaches comprising a cloud infrastructure comprising the at least one processor, the cloud infrastructure comprising a cloud-based storage, wherein the simulation of the simulated production system, the simulated production planning and/or the simulated production control takes place in the cloud infrastructure (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 49-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract).

With regard to Claim 15, Wang teaches comprising at least one display device configured to display control-related outputs and/or informational outputs from the system (see at least paragraphs 7-11, 49-57, 73-84, Claim 7, Abstract).

Conclusion

Applicants’ 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action.  In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
 	Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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 L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623



/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624