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
Status of Claims
Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.1141
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 29, 2025 has been entered.
This action is a non-final action in response to communications filed on 09/29/2025.
Claims 2, 12 and 13 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks have been considered.
Applicant argues the claims are directed , “…to a technological solution to a technological problem: how to dynamically control resource constrained vehicle assembly lines in real time.” (pgs. 6-7)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In McRO the claims were directed to an improvement in computer related technology by allowing computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters. The court in McRo looked to the specification which described the invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules and how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated, utilizing rules in a specific technological way (e.g. a particular way to achieve a desired outcome).
In the instant claims, the limitations encompass Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 11 recite the additional element of a processor for performing generating, calculating and selecting. The processor is recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (See Spec ¶0058, general purpose computer).
The limitations are reflective of collecting and analyzing data. For instance, the step of generating a VIN work pool is data gathering activity. The steps of calculating a line target work pool and a production target work pool involve analyzing data using mathematical operations. The step of selecting a VIN is data gathering activity. The step of assigning the selected VIN to an assembly schedule involves analyzing data.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The problem described in the Specification to create a unique and optimized production planning algorithm for accessory installation on finished vehicles to reduce the queuing at vehicle distribution centers (see Spec ¶0003) is not a technically driven problem (such as in McRO or DDR). Nothing in the claims demonstrate a technical solution to a technical problem as the claims are utilizing generic computer components to perform generic computer functions.
Applicant argues, “ These features cannot reasonably be performed mentally or with pen and paper, as alleged, because they require continuous real-time adjustment across multiple interdependent work pools-something only achievable with a computing system.” (pg. 7)
Based on MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Here, generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory) are performing generic computer functions such as generating a VIN work pool, calculating a line target work pool, calculating a production target, selecting a VIN from the work pool and assigning the selected VIN to a schedule which reflects collecting an analyzing data. These are steps that can be performed with mental reasoning and implemented using generic computer component.
Applicant argues, “ Even assuming arguendo the claims recite a judicial exception, they are integrated into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).” (pgs. 7-8)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 11 recite the additional element of a processor for performing generating, calculating and selecting. The processor is recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (See Spec ¶0058, general purpose computer).
The limitations are reflective of collecting and analyzing data. For instance, the step of generating a VIN work pool is data gathering activity. The steps of calculating a line target work pool and a production target work pool involve analyzing data using mathematical operations. The step of selecting a VIN is data gathering activity. The step of assigning the selected VIN to an assembly schedule involves analyzing data.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues similar to Examples 36 and 37, “ Like these examples, the present claims integrate: (i) generating a VIN work pool based on VIN lists and exclusions; … and (v) assigning VINs in real time to assembly schedules - all scheduling logic which is integrated into a real- world manufacturing environment, thereby imposing meaningful limits and ensuring the claims are directed to a practical application.” (pgs. 7-8)
Example 36 is directed to tracking the presence and location of items of inventory by accurately identifying items and tracking missing item by using high resolution video camera array with overlapping views in combination with a recognition model which overcomes problems in existing technologies. In Example 37 the additional elements were found to recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.
Unlike Examples 36 and 37, the instant claims are directed to generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory) performing generic computer functions such as generating a VIN work pool, calculating a line target work pool, calculating a production target, selecting a VIN from the work pool and assigning the selected VIN to a schedule which reflects collecting and analyzing data. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant argues, “ This case is also analogous to Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where mathematical formulas applied in real time to rubber curing were eligible because they improved a physical manufacturing process. Here, countdown values, line ratios, and VIN assignments are applied in real time to optimize vehicle assembly throughput, a similarly technical application.” (pgs. 7-8)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated with Examples 36 and 37 the claims are not similar in scope, thus Diehr does not apply.
Applicant argues, “ This ordered combination is not conventional in the art and provides a non-routine solution to a recognized technological challenge in vehicle assembly. As in Bascom v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), even if individual elements are known, the nonconventional arrangement of those elements constitutes an inventive concept.” (pg. 8)
In Bascom the court found that although the additional elements were generic computer elements when considered individually, when considered in combination an inventive concept was found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements. The claims in Bascom did not merely recite the abstract idea of
filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components. The inventive concept is in the technical feature of network technology in a filtering system by associating individual accounts with their own filtering scheme and elements while locating the filtering.
Unlike Bascom, the claims are directed to generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory) performing generic computer functions such as generating a VIN work pool, calculating a line target work pool, calculating a production target, selecting a VIN from the work pool and assigning the selected VIN to a schedule which reflects collecting and analyzing data. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional element of a processor is considered a generic computer component performing generic computer functions (generating, calculating, selecting, assigning) that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Applicant argues, “Further, the Office Action has not cited any factual evidence that these features were well-understood, routine, and conventional.” (pg. 8)
Examiner notes that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection does not include language directed to WURC.
The remainder of Applicant’s argument is moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 9-11, filed 09/29/2025, with respect to Madden have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
generating, [by a processor] in real-time, a vehicle identification number (VIN) work pool comprising a list of available VINs based on one or more VIN lists and a list of VIN exclusions;
calculating, [by the processor], a line target work pool based on available resources, wherein the line target work pool is a list of assembly lines each defined by: a line target; a countdown value that is updated as vehicles are assigned or assembled; and a line ratio determined based upon the line target and countdown value;
calculating, [by the processor] in real-time, one or more production target work pools based on the VIN work pool and the line target work pool; and
selecting, [by the processor] in real-time, a VIN from the VIN work pool for assignment to an assembly schedule based on an age of the VIN and a degree of the VIN satisfying the line target work pool and the one or more production target work pools;
assigning the selected VIN to the assembly schedule, thereby generating a schedule for assembly of vehicles
The limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory). For example, generating a vin work pool, calculating line target/production target pools and selecting a VIN involve collecting and analyzing data, which could reasonably be performed in the human mind or with a pen/paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mental Processes.
Additionally, the claims encompass Mathematical Concepts related to mathematical calculations. Steps such as calculating a line target work pool and line ratios involve mathematical calculations.
Independent Claim 11 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract idea identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claims 2-4 is directed to applying a stepwise approach to selecting a VIN, Claim 5 calculated line target and production target work polls based on Heijunka production, Claim 6 is directed to removing selected VIN from work pool and updating, Claim 7 is directed to calculating production target work pool, Claim 8 is directed to iteratively selecting VINs until target is met, Claim 9 is directed to a scheduling period and Claim 10 is directed to VIN type and priority. Claims 12-20 substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 2-10 and encompass the same abstract concept.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 11 recite the additional element of a processor for performing generating, calculating and selecting. The processor is recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (See Spec ¶0058, general purpose computer).
The limitations are reflective of collecting and analyzing data. For instance, the step of generating a VIN work pool is data gathering activity. The steps of calculating a line target work pool and a production target work pool involve analyzing data using mathematical operations. The step of selecting a VIN is data gathering activity. The step of assigning the selected VIN to an assembly schedule involves analyzing data. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional element of a processor is considered a generic computer component performing generic computer functions (generating, calculating, selecting, assigning) that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Youn (US 2022/0227440) discloses a parallel cell based mobility production system is a parallel cell based mobility production system for producing vehicles of various types with one production system, including a serial production line which is composed of one or more cells arranged in series, and through which vehicles of various types are sequentially passed to be processed.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683