DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to the amendment filed 07/11/2025.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits on page 10 of the remarks that the features of claim 1 cannot practically be performed in the human mind and that accordingly for this reason the claims are patent eligible under Step 2A Prong One. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the October 2019 Updated Guidance and under the analysis of claims under step 2A of the Alice framework, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the present claims are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process. Under the 2019 PEG, the “mental processes” grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Per the October 2019 Updated Guidance examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
Applicant submits on pages 11-13 of the remarks that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant submits on page 15 of the remarks that Weis does not disclose or suggest any condition under which manufacturing changes. Examiner respectfully disagrees, Weiss discloses a change to manufacturing in at least [0094].
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 8 and 15) are directed, in part to a method, a system and a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium for generating an optimized assembly plan for a machine. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-7 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process, claims 8-14 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine, and claims 15-20 are directed to a computer program product … comprising a computer readable storage medium, which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture. Therefore, the claims are eligible under Step 1. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to generating an optimized assembly plan for a machine, the method comprising: receiving… component data associated with the machine and one or more machine auxiliary components, wherein the one or more machine auxiliary components are configured within one or more environments, wherein the one or more environments include one or more fabrication units, one or more storage units, and one or more assembly units; generating, by the processor, a digital twin associated with the machine, using the component data; performing a simulation, using the digital twin, to determine a first amount of machine auxiliary components to be stored within the one or more storage units at different times; determining, based on the simulation, a second amount of machine auxiliary components to be reduced within the one or more storage units; determining, based on the simulation, a speed of the one or more fabrication units with respect to fabricating and replacing machine auxiliary components; generating, by the processor, the optimized assembly plan based on the first amount, the second amount, and the speed of the one or more fabrication units; beginning using the one or more fabrication units, fabrication of the one or more machine auxiliary components based on the speed of the one or more fabrication units when an inventory of machine auxiliary components at the one or more storage units is less than the first amount, and stopping or reducing, using the one or more fabrication unit fabrication of the one or more machine auxiliary components based on the speed of the one or more fabrication units when the inventory of machine auxiliary components at the one or more storage units exceeds the second amount. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the additional elements: “a processor”; “a machine”; “a digital twin”; “a component”; “a fabrication unit”, “a storage unit”; “an assembly unit”; “a system”; “a memory”; “a computer program product … comprising a computer readable storage medium”. These additional element in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 3A and related text and [0071-0073] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “an example computer system 401 that may be used in implementing one or more of the methods, tools, and modules, and any related functions, described herein (e.g., using one or more processor circuits or computer processors of the computer), in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. In some embodiments, the major components of the computer system 401 may comprise one or more CPUs 402, a memory subsystem 404, a terminal interface 412, a storage interface 416, an I/O (Input/Output) device interface 414, and a network interface 418, all of which may be communicatively coupled, directly or indirectly, for inter-component communication via a memory bus 403, an I/O bus 408, and an I/O bus interface unit 410. The computer system 401 may contain one or more general-purpose programmable central processing units (CPUs) 402A, 402B, 402C, and 402D, herein generically referred to as the CPU 402. In some embodiments, the computer system 401 may contain multiple processors typical of a relatively large system; however, in other embodiments the computer system 401 may alternatively be a single CPU system. Each CPU 402 may execute instructions stored in the memory subsystem 404 and may include one or more levels of on-board cache. System memory 404 may include computer system readable media in the form of volatile memory, such as random access memory (RAM) 422 or cache memory 424. Computer system 401 may further include other removable/non-removable, volatile/non-volatile computer system storage media. By way of example only, storage system 426 can be provided for reading from and writing to a non-removable, non-volatile magnetic media, such as a "hard drive." Although not shown, a magnetic disk drive for reading from and writing to a removable, non-volatile magnetic disk (e.g., a "floppy disk"), or an optical disk drive for reading from or writing to a removable, non-volatile optical disc such as a CD-ROM, DVD-ROM or other optical media can be provided. In addition, memory 404 can include flash memory, e.g., a flash memory stick drive or a flash drive. Memory devices can be connected to memory bus 403 by one or more data media interfaces. The memory 404 may include at least one program product having a set (e.g., at least one) of program modules that are configured to carry out the functions of various embodiments.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
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.
12. 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.
13. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2021/0287459 (hereinafter; Cella) in view of US Pub. No. 2020/0013156 (hereinafter; Weiss).
Regarding claims 1/8/15, Cella discloses:
A computer implemented method; system; a computer program product for generating an optimized assembly plan for a machine, comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising: receiving, by a processor, component data associated with the machine and one or more machine auxiliary components, wherein the one or more machine auxiliary components are configured within one or more environments, (Cella [0024] discloses singular parts and subassemblies; [0104] discloses a set of machine components.) wherein the one or more environments include one or more fabrication units, (Cella [0792-0793] disclose fabrication and fabrication phases.) one or more storage units, (Cella discloses storage and storage facilities in at least [0105]; [0796]; [0828] and one or more assembly units; (Cella [0744]; [0792] disclose assembly and assembly lines, See also Fig. 63.) generating, by the processor, a digital twin associated with the machine, using the component data; (Cella [0005] discloses a system that creates, manages, and provides digital twins.)
generating, by the processor, the optimized assembly plan based on the first amount, the second amount, and the speed of the one or more fabrication units; (Cella [0744] discloses The assembly view 60524 allows the manufacturer 60240 to run prescriptive models showing how the vehicle would work and to optimize the performance of the vehicle 60104 and its components and subsystems.)
Although Cella discloses optimizing assembly plans, Cella does not specifically disclose a simulation or a change in fabrication. However, Weiss discloses the following limitations:
performing a simulation, using the digital twin, to determine a first amount of machine auxiliary components to be stored within the one or more storage units at different times; determining, based on the simulation, a second amount of machine auxiliary components to be reduced within the one or more storage units; determining, based on the simulation, a speed of the one or more fabrication units with respect to fabricating and replacing auxiliary machine components; (Weiss [0084] discloses: the computer system can implement the feature map to: identify a particular subset of features—represented in vectors (i.e. simulation) corresponding to a population of assembly units; By thus implementing the feature map as a mask to isolate features that are spatially and temporally close to (e.g., with a time and distance threshold of) the defect and therefore more likely to have caused the defect, the computer system can reduce processing load, increase processing speed, and increase accuracy of a derive correlation between a particular features and the defect.
beginning using the one or more fabrication units, of the one or more machine auxiliary components based on the speed of the one or more fabrication units when an inventory of machine auxiliary components at the one or more storage units is less than the first amount, the one or more machine auxiliary components being fabricated to replace or repair one or more components of the machine; stopping or reducing, using the one or more fabrication units, fabrication of the one or more machine auxiliary components based on the speed of the one or more fabrication units when the inventory of machine auxiliary components at the one or more storage units exceeds the second amount. (Weiss [0014] discloses In particular, the feature map can store: physical locations at which manufacturing inputs effect or modify a particular point, line, area, or volume location on assembly units of this assembly type; relative times that these manufacturing inputs are applied to these assembly units of this assembly type during a sequence of manufacturing steps and assembly stages; and/or relative times that these assembly units are exposed to these manufacturing input during this sequence of manufacturing steps and assembly stages s. [0094] discloses a notification that prompts a change in manufacturing…or automatic discard or rework of assembly units.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the digital twin system of Cella with the method for monitoring manufacture of assembly units of Weiss in order to calculate correlations between manufacturing features (Weiss abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 2/9/16, Although Cella discloses optimizing assembly plans, Cella does not specifically disclose recommended amount of components. However, Weiss discloses the following limitations:
The system of claim 1; the computer implemented method of claim 8; the computer program product of claim 15, further comprises: identifying a product plan based, at least in part on the digital twin of the machine, wherein the product plan includes a minimum recommended amount of the one or more machine auxiliary components. (Weiss [0021] discloses quantity of assembly units; (e.g., as few as ten or as many millions of imaged assembly units) and with minimal computational load.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the digital twin system of Cella with the method for monitoring manufacture of assembly units of Weiss in order to calculate correlations between manufacturing features (Weiss abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 3/10/17, Although Cella discloses optimizing assembly plans, Cella does not specifically disclose assembly time. However, Weiss discloses the following limitations:
The system of claim 1; the computer implemented method of claim 8; the computer program product of claim 15, wherein the optimized assembly plan includes an assembly time, wherein the assembly time is a total amount of time needed to assemble the one or more machine auxiliary components into the machine (Weiss discloses assembly times in at least [0013]; [0014]; [0046]; [0071].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the digital twin system of Cella with the method for monitoring manufacture of assembly units of Weiss in order to calculate correlations between manufacturing features (Weiss abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 4/11/18, Cella discloses:
The system of claim 1; the computer implemented method of claim 8; the computer program product of claim 15 wherein the optimized assembly plan includes a transportation dataset, wherein the transportation dataset is associated with transporting of the one or more machine auxiliary components from the one or more environments to an assembly unit (Cella [0935] discloses assemblies or subassemblies that should be transported to other areas[…])
Regarding claims 5/12/19, Cella discloses:
The system of claim 1; the computer implemented method of claim 8; the computer program product of claim 15, further comprising: analyzing the component data associated with each of the one or more environments; and determining whether the one or more environments are a fabrication unit, a storage unit, or an assembly unit. (Cella [0829] discloses a digital twin as part of different processes and stages of a process, including a manufacturing process (i.e. fabrication unit.).)
Regarding claims 6/13/20, Cella discloses:
The system of claim 5; the computer implemented method of claim 12; the computer program product of claim 19 further including identifying one or more transportation routes associated with the fabrication unit, the storage unit, and the assembly unit. (Cella [0935] discloses assemblies or subassemblies that should be transported to other areas[…])
Regarding claims 7/14, Cella discloses:
The system of claim 5; the computer implemented method of claim 12, further including: identifying an optimized fabrication unit, an optimized storage unit, or an optimized assembly unit. (Cella discloses optimized parameters in at least [0385]; [0398];[0402] discloses optimal configuration of a system (i.e. assembly.)
Conclusion
15. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625