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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-3, and 8-15 are presented for examination based on the amendment filed 07/25/2025. Claims 1, 8, and 13 are amended. Claims 4-7 are cancelled. Claim 15 is newly added.
The 101 rejections have been withdrawn in view of amendments and arguments presented by the applicant.
The 35 USC 103 rejection is maintained and modified to address the amended claim language.
Claim Objection
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 should end in a period, not a comma. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barral et al., US 6470301 (Barral) in view of Fumito et al. (Fumito), WO 2016098265 in view of Harada et al., US20150066551 (Harada)in further view of Liggett et al., Automated facilities layout: past, present and future Automation in Construction (Liggett) in further view of Buehler et al., US 8174572 (Buehler).
Claim 1
Barral teaches A layout design device that designs a new layout obtained by changing an existing layout related to arrangement of a facility in a certain space, the layout design device comprising: (Barral Abstract “A method and system for optimizing the assembly workcell layout in the context of industrial robotic CAD/CAM/CAE software products.”) and (Barral Col. 20 Lines 27-30 “Apparatus of the invention may be implemented in a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine-readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor.”)
and an output processor that outputs the new layout generated by the generator, (Barral Abstract “This method yields several possible and optimal positions for a machine and several layouts are thus obtained at the end of execution.”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: This process not only generates but also outputs multiple optimized workcell layouts, corresponding to an output processor}
Barral does not explicitly teach but Fumito teaches a generator that generates a new layout according to stay data related to a stay specified from flow line data representing a motion of a target in a case of the existing layout in a space; (Fumito Pg. 3 Paragraph 6 “the flow line drawing method uses a computer to acquire information indicating the position of each of a plurality of parts including a specific part of a person to be measured in a state associated with the measured time. Will run. In the flow line drawing method, a computer executes a process of specifying a time range in which the person is performing a predetermined operation based on the acquired information. In the flow line drawing method, the computer executes a process of drawing the flow line for the specific part in a state where the time range in which the predetermined operation is performed and the other time range can be identified.”) {Examiners note: Shows extracting flow line data from motion in an environment.}
Barral and Fumito are analogous to each other because they are from the same field of endeavor of layout optimization.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Barral and Fumito before him or her, to modify the workcell layout rearrangement device of Barral with the flow lines of Fumito to more accurately evaluate the efficiency of work performed as suggested in Fumito (Pg 3 Paragraph 4)
Modified Barral with Fumito does not explicitly teach but Harada teaches wherein the generator generates the stay data by extracting a stay portion where the target stays from the flow line data, (Harada 0068 “The control unit 43 is capable of detecting flow line work action information from flow line data or the image data from a location detection device . . . stopping action detection method performed by the control unit 43 can be realized by, through the use of flow line data, identifying a position corresponding to a fixed place at which a worker has stayed for a long time, or a position which corresponds to a place close to a shelf and on which traces of a movement of a worker are concentrated.”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Flow line data for determining stay location.}
Barral, Fumito, and Harada are analogous to each other because they are from the same field of endeavor of layout optimization.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Barral, Fumito, and Harada before him or her to modify the workcell layout rearrangement device of Barral with the flow lines of Fumito and the flow line analysis of Harada to associate key information without performing any collation on a person as suggested in 0019 of Harada.
Modified Barral with Fumito and Harada does not explicitly teach, but Liggett teaches and generates the new layout by using auxiliary information that associates the facility arranged in the space with the stay portion and the stay data. (Liggett Pg 199 Section 4 “Both methods design layouts by placing objects so that they satisfy a set of constraints which involve such factors as position, orientation, adjacency, path, view, or distance.” {EXAMINERS NOTE: Auxiliary information is the constraints mentioned.}
Barral, Fumito, Harada, and Liggett are analogous to each other because they are from the same field of endeavor of layout optimization.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Barral, Fumito, Harada, and Liggett before him or her, to modify the workcell layout rearrangement device of Barral with the flow lines of Fumito, the flow line analysis of Harada, and using the stay portion of using auxiliary data of Liggett to optimize an objective layout as suggest in Liggett Pg 197 paragraph 2.
Modified Barral with Liggett teaches designs, using an evaluation function, the new layout in which a sum of flow lines of the target is smaller than the existing layout so that increased work efficiency is provided by the new layout in which a moving distance of the target is shortened, (Barral column 14 lines 4-5 “Typically, this involves finding some configuration of parameters that minimizes a function”) (Barral Col 17 Lines 31-35 “Modified simulated annealing is used to find a set of possible placements for the selected machine. The positions calculated are local minima of the cost function, in a search space limited only by the constraints mentioned in the 35 section describing assumptions.”) (Liggett Pg 211 Section 11 “The criterion function used to drive the improvement process is a function of horizontal travel between locations on the same floor and vertical travel which is a combination of horizontal travel from each activity to the lift and the travel time of the lift.”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: flow lines are the same thing as travel time/path, The cost function is the functional equivalent of the evaluation function.}
Barral, Fumito, Harada, and Liggett do not explicitly teach but Buehler teaches based on the evaluation function, the layout design device being connected to a camera, wherein the camera captures a video image data of the target, (Buehler Col 2 Lines 16-21 “The invention generally provides for video surveillance systems, data structures, and video compilation techniques = that model and take advantage of known or inferred relationships among video camera positions to select relevant video data streams for presentation and/or video capture.)
and wherein the generator generates the flow line data representing a motion of the target in the existing layout in a space using the video image data captured by the camera. (Buehler column 2 lines 24-29 “and observed relationships (e.g., historical data 25 indicating the travel paths that people most commonly follow) can facilitate an intelligent selection and presentation of potential "next" cameras to which a subject may travel. This intelligent camera selection can therefore reduce or eliminate the need for users of the system”)
Barral, Fumito, Harada, Liggett, and Buehler are analogous to each other because they are from the same field of endeavor of layout optimization.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Barral, Fumito, Harada, Liggett, and Buehler before him or her, to modify the workcell layout rearrangement device of Barral with the flow lines of Fumito, the flow line analysis of Harada, and the stay portion of auxiliary data of Liggett with the camera of Buehler to achieve more accurate tracking information as suggested in Buehler Col 1 Lines 40-41.
Claim 2.
Modified Barral with Fumito teaches The layout design device according to claim 1, wherein the generator further generates, from the flow line data, movement frequency data from the stay portion where the target stays to a next stay portion where the target stays (Fumito Pg. 3 Paragraph 6 “In the flow line drawing method, the computer executes a process of drawing the flow line for the specific part in a state where the time range in which the predetermined operation is performed and the other time range can be identified.”)
Modified Barral with Liggett teaches and generates the new layout by using the auxiliary information that associates the facility arranged in the space with the stay portion, the stay data, and the movement frequency data. (Liggett Pg 199 Section 4 “Both methods design layouts by placing objects so that they satisfy a set of constraints which involve such factors as position, orientation, adjacency, path, view, or distance.” {EXAMINERS NOTE: Auxiliary information is the constraints mentioned.}
Claim 3.
Modified Barral teaches The layout design device according to claim 1, wherein the auxiliary information is information for associating the stay portion with a selected facility other than a facility adjacent to the stay portion, (Barral Col 2 Lines 16-22 “According to an aspect of the invention, a modified "simulated annealing" method is employed to find a set of locations on the floor of the workcell in which the second peripheral machine may be placed. The modified simulated annealing method finds locations that would result in a minimum amount of time for interaction between the robot and the peripheral machines in the workcell.”)
Modified Barral with Liggett teaches and the generator generates the new layout by associating the stay portion with the facility adjacent to the stay portion, (Liggett Pg 207 Section 8 Paragraph 1 “. . . They all attempt to satisfy two types of constraints: one set that is dependent on the structure or topology of the problem such as the requirement that the rectangles not overlap and fit within a given boundary; and a second set of constraints which are independent of structure and consider attributes such as area, dimension, orientation, and adjacency requirements.”)
Modified Barral with Liggett teaches and generates the new layout by associating the stay portion with the selected facility to be associated in the auxiliary information. (Liggett Pg 199 Section 4 paragraph 3 “Both methods design layouts by placing objects so that they satisfy a set of constraints which involve such factors as position, orientation, adjacency, path, view, or distance.”)
Claim 8.
Modified Barral teaches The layout design device according to claim 1, wherein the generator designs the new layout according to a constraint condition for designing a layout. (Barral Col 21 Lines 4-9 “in said workcell using an 5 optimization method selective for minimum cycle time, said optimization method selective for minimum cycle time comprising a conventional simulated annealing method that has been modified, said modifications comprising. . . ”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: New layout in accordance with constraint conditions.}
Claim 9.
Modified Barral teaches The layout design device according to claim 8, wherein the constraint condition is information regarding allowance of an addition number of facilities, and the generator designs the new layout by acquiring the information regarding the allowance of the addition number of facilities arranged in the space and adding the facility within a range designated by the constraint condition. (Barral Col 7 Lines 11-18 “According to the present invention, this task is made more efficient by employing a constructive algorithm approach where peripheral machines are added to the workspace one-by-one. Each time a peripheral machine is added, a modified simulated annealing method is employed to determine a set of possible layouts including the new peripheral machine. Only the best layouts are accepted for subsequent evaluation.”)
Claim 10.
Modified Barral teaches The layout design device according to claim 1, wherein the auxiliary information is information in which a facility selected by a user and the stay portion are associated with each other. (Barral Col 2 Lines 57-62 “According to the preferred embodiment of the invention, only the five best partial layouts are selected, although is to be understood that any number of partial layouts may be selected, as desired by the user or dictated by the availability of CPU time.” {Examiners note: User specified layout preference}
Claim 11.
Modified Barral with Fumito teaches The layout design device according to claim 1, wherein the auxiliary information is information for specifying a motion of a worker who is the target, and the generator associates a facility associated with the motion included in the auxiliary information with the stay portion where the target exists. (Fumito Pg 5 Paragraph 4 “When the human body is detected from the captured image, the sensor device 13 outputs position information indicating the position of each detected part of the human body and information regarding the open / closed state of the left and right hands.”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Describing one aspect of the optimization of flow lines from a human doing their job.}
Claim 12.
Modified Barral with Liggett teaches The layout design device according to claim 8, wherein the generator uses the auxiliary information for at least either the evaluation function or the constraint condition. (Liggett Pg. 207 section 8 “The solution procedure is based on a protocol analysis of the problem-structuring and problem-solving behavior of designers. Layout requirements are expressed as relationships between objects to be located. These relationships, which are called ‘predicates’, are used as generative constraints or evaluative criteria.”)
Claim 13.
Barral teaches A layout design method for designing a new layout obtained by changing an existing layout related to arrangement of a facility in a certain space, the layout design method comprising: (Barral Abstract “A method and system for optimizing the assembly workcell layout in the context of industrial robotic CAD/CAM/CAE software products.”) and (Barral Col. 20 Lines 27-30 “Apparatus of the invention may be implemented in a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine-readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor.”)
Barral does not explicitly teach, but Fumito teaches generating the new layout by using auxiliary information that associates the facility arranged in the space with the stay portion and the stay data; based on the evaluation function and outputting the generated new layout. (Fumito Pg. 3 Paragraph 6 “the flow line drawing method uses a computer to acquire information indicating the position of each of a plurality of parts including a specific part of a person to be measured in a state associated with the measured time. Will run. In the flow line drawing method, a computer executes a process of specifying a time range in which the person is performing a predetermined operation based on the acquired information. In the flow line drawing method, the computer executes a process of drawing the flow line for the specific part in a state where the time range in which the predetermined operation is performed and the other time range can be identified.”) {Examiners note: Shows extracting flow line data from motion in an environment.}
Barral and Fumito are analogous to each other because they are from the same field of endeavor of layout optimization.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Barral and Fumito before him or her, to modify the workcell layout rearrangement device of Barral with the flow lines of Fumito to more accurately evaluate the efficiency of work performed as suggested in Fumito (Pg 3 Paragraph 4)
Modified Barral with Fumito does not explicitly teach, but Harada teaches generating stay data by extracting a stay portion where a target stays from flow line data representing a motion of the target in a case of the existing layout in a space; (Harada 0068 “The control unit 43 is capable of detecting flow line work action information from flow line data or the image data from a location detection device . . . stopping action detection method performed by the control unit 43 can be realized by, through the use of flow line data, identifying a position corresponding to a fixed place at which a worker has stayed for a long time, or a position which corresponds to a place close to a shelf and on which traces of a movement of a worker are concentrated.”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Flow line data for determining stay location.}
Barral, Fumito, and Harada are analogous to each other because they are from the same field of endeavor of layout optimization.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Barral, Fumito, and Harada before him or her to modify the workcell layout rearrangement device of Barral with the flow lines of Fumito and the flow line analysis of Harada to associate key information without performing any collation on a person as suggested in 0019 of Harada.
Modified Barral with Fumito, and Harada does not explicitly teach, but Liggett teaches with designing, using an evaluation function, the new layout in which a sum of flow lines of the target is smaller than the existing layout so that increased work efficiency is provided by the new layout in which a moving distance of the target is shortened, and (Liggett Pg 211 Section 11 “The criterion function used to drive the improvement process is a function of horizontal travel between locations on the same floor and vertical travel which is a combination of horizontal travel from each activity to the lift and the travel time of the lift.”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: flow lines are the same thing as travel time/path, The cost function is the functional equivalent of the evaluation function.}
Barral, Fumito, Harada, and Liggett are analogous to each other because they are from the same field of endeavor of layout optimization.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Barral, Fumito, Harada, and Liggett before him or her, to modify the workcell layout rearrangement device of Barral with the flow lines of Fumito, the flow line analysis of Harada, and using the stay portion of using auxiliary data of Liggett to optimize an objective layout as suggest in Liggett Pg 197 paragraph 2.
Modified Barral with Fumito, Harada, and Liggett does not explicitly teach but Buehler teaches wherein a camera captures a video image data of the target, and wherein a generator generates the flow line data representing a motion of the target in the existing layout in a space using the video image data captured by the camera (Buehler Col 2 Lines 16-21 “The invention generally provides for video surveillance systems, data structures, and video compilation techniques that model and take advantage of known or inferred relationships among video camera positions to select relevant video data streams for presentation and/or video capture.) (Buehler column 2 lines 24-29 “and observed relationships (e.g., historical data 25 indicating the travel paths that people most commonly follow) can facilitate an intelligent selection and presentation of potential "next" cameras to which a subject may travel. This intelligent camera selection can therefore reduce or eliminate the need for users of the system”)
Barral, Fumito, Harada, Liggett, and Buehler are analogous to each other because they are from the same field of endeavor of layout optimization.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Barral, Fumito, Harada, Liggett, and Buehler before him or her, to modify the workcell layout rearrangement device of Barral with the flow lines of Fumito, the flow line analysis of Harada, and the stay portion of auxiliary data of Liggett with the camera of Buehler to achieve more accurate tracking information as suggested in Buehler Col 1 Lines 40-41.
Claim 14
Modified Barral with Harada teaches A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a computer program causing a control circuit include in a computer to implement the method of claim 13. (Harada Col 11 10) “A non-transitory computer readable medium which stores a flow line analysis program which makes a computer operate as functions for analyzing flow line data”
Claim 15
Modified Barral with Fumito teaches The layout design device according to claim 1, wherein the target is a human, the layout design device further comprising a sensor that detects movement of the human, and the generator uses the movement detected by the sensor as the auxiliary information. (Fumito Abstract “The motion path drawing method comprises execution by a computer of a process whereby the time range in which the human subject is performing a prescribed motion is specified on the basis of the acquired information.”)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN DAVID HAGLER whose telephone number is (703)756-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am- 6pm.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 5712723676. 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.
/JOHN DAVID HAGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189