DETAILED ACTION
Claim 1 had been amended. Claims 5-9 have been added. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application.
Claim 1 is independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This action is final.
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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 have been fully considered but in moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant amended the independent claim 1 to further specify:
calculates movement plan information based on the calculated production plan, the movement plan information includes a transfer timing, the number to be transferred per unit time or unit period, a movement path related to the transfer and a movement time related to the transfer, and
provides an administrator or an operator with notification that in order to increase the operating rate of the stationary device, increasing a machining speed of the stationary device, increasing a number of workpieces to be transferred to the stationary device by the mobile devices, or eliminating defects of the stationary device.
NIINO JP 2009187266 A and MATSUDA JP 3212991 B2 are introduced in view of new ground of rejection. The teachings of NAKAZONO, and Miura as disclosed in the previous office action are hereby incorporated by references to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
Another iteration of claim analysis has been made. Referring to the corresponding sections of the claim analysis below for details.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “in a case where production deviation” has typo, should be “in a case where a production deviation”.
Claim 7 recites “in a case where a production deviation is caused with respect to the stationary devices due to a shortage of supply of the workpieces transferred by the mobile device, the server corrects the movement plan information to increase the supply of the workpieces to be transferred by the mobile device such that the operational state is corrected so as to reduce the production deviation” that misses a “,” at the end of the paragraph.
Claim 7 recites “in a case where production deviation” has typo, should be “in a case where a production deviation”.
Claim 8 recites “in a case where a production deviation is caused with respect to the stationary devices due to a shortage of supply of the workpieces transferred by the mobile device, the server corrects the movement plan information to increase the supply of the workpieces to be transferred by the mobile device such that the operational state is corrected so as to reduce the production deviation” that misses a “,” at the end of the paragraph.
Claim 8 recites “in a case where production deviation” has typo, should be “in a case where a production deviation”.
Claim 8 recites “before the stationary device is actually added” has typo, should be “before a stationary device is actually added”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites “calculates movement plan information based on the calculated production plan”, “the calculated production plan” lacks antecedent basis. For examination purpose, “the calculated production plan” is construed as "the predetermined production plan”.
Claim 1 recites “the operating rate” in last paragraph that lacks antecedent basis, for examination purpose, “the operating rate” will be construed as "an operating rate".
Regarding dependent Claims 2-9, dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent(s).
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAZONO JP 2019061312 A1 in view of NIINO JP 2009187266 A and MATSUDA JP 3212991 B2.
Regarding claim 1, NAKAZONO teaches a manufacturing management system (Fig. 1 [0011] [0013] manufacturing system 1)) comprising:
a stationary device installed in a workspace (Fig. 1 [0011] [0013] manufacturing system 1 including component mounting lines L1 to L3);
a mobile device capable of moving in the workspace (Fig. 1 [0011] [0013] manufacturing system 1 including unmanned transfer vehicles V); and
a server (Fig. 1 [0011] [0013] computer 3) configured to extract at least operational state data relating to the stationary device and the mobile device, and monitor a production status based on the operational state data (Fig. 4 [0025] – [0029] product plan information 32 and floor layout information 37; transfer means information 34 and mounting material information 38 i.e. “operational state data relating to the mobile device”; worker information 35, material use information 36 and supply completion information 39 i.e. “operational state data relating to the stationary device” are acquired, [0041] - [0044] the supply deadline time and supply end estimated time are monitored based on the acquired information i.e. “monitor a production status based on the operational state data”),
wherein the server derives, as a production deviation, a deviation between the production status and a predetermined production plan, and corrects an operational state of at least one selected from the stationary device and the mobile device such that the production deviation is reduced ([0041] - [0044] the occurrence of replenishment delay is predicted when the estimated replenishment end time delay is later than the planned time, [0045] – [0048] priority work instruction involving the unmanned transfer vehicle V and priority worker of the mounting machine is implemented to avoid the shortage of parts caused by the delay i.e. “corrects an operational state of at least one selected from the stationary device and the mobile device such that the production deviation is reduced”); and
provides an administrator or an operator with notification that in order to increase an operating rate of the stationary device, increasing a machining speed of the stationary device, increasing a number of workpieces to be transferred to the stationary device by the mobile devices, or eliminating defects of the stationary device ([0045] – [0048] the administrator Wm is notified the supply shortage of the component mounting line with the supply delay information indicating in order to increase the operating rate of the component mounting line, more materials need to be supplied with higher priority).
NAKAZONO does not explicitly further teach:
calculates movement plan information based on the predetermined production plan, the movement plan information includes a transfer timing, the number to be transferred per unit time or unit period, a movement path related to the transfer and a movement time related to the transfer.
NIINO explicitly teaches in an analogous art that calculates movement plan information based on the predetermined production plan, the movement plan information includes a transfer timing, a movement path related to the transfer and a movement time related to the transfer (page 4 paragraph 3 from the bottom to page 5 paragraph 6 and page 6 paragraph 5 to page 7 paragraph 2, new transport plan is created based on the production plan, including the transfer time of the transfer path i.e. “a movement path related to the transfer and a movement time related to the transfer” and the time the product is loaded on the automatic transport vehicle i.e. “a transfer timing”), and
MATSUDA explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the movement plan information includes the number to be transferred per unit time (page 4 paragraph 1, changing the transport speed as the number of works transported by the transport unit in a unit time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified NAKAZONO to incorporate the teachings of NIINO and MATSUDA, because they all directed to using mobile device in manufacturing operation, to make the system wherein calculates movement plan information based on the predetermined production plan, the movement plan information includes a transfer timing, the number to be transferred per unit time or unit period, a movement path related to the transfer and a movement time related to the transfer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to optimize the transport plan to prevent conveyance loss and increase the operating rate of each manufacturing device, as NIINO teaches in page 7 paragraph 6.
Regarding claim 3, NAKAZONO further teaches the operational state data of the mobile device includes a position of the mobile device ([0026] car position), an operating rate of the mobile device ([0029] moving speed of the unmanned transfer vehicle V), and a transfer time for the mobile device to transfer an article ([0039] departure time and arrival time of unmanned transfer vehicles).
Regarding claim 5, NAKAZONO further teaches in a case where a production deviation is caused with respect to the stationary devices due to a shortage of supply of the workpieces transferred by the mobile device, the server corrects the movement plan information to increase the supply of the workpieces to be transferred by the mobile device such that the operational state is corrected so as to reduce the production deviation ([0045] – [0048] priority work instruction involving the unmanned transfer vehicle V and priority worker of the mounting machine is implemented to increase the material supplied by the unmanned transfer vehicle to avoid the shortage of parts caused by the delay).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAZONO in view of NIINO and MATSUDA as applied to claims 1, 3 and 5 above, further in view of Miura US 20170183097 A12.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of NAKAZONO, NIINO and MATSUDA does not explicitly further teach the mobile device includes at least an unmanned aircraft capable of transferring an article to be used in the workspace.
Miura explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the mobile device includes at least an unmanned aircraft capable of transferring an article to be used in the workspace (Fig. 1 [0025] drones 11 and 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified NAKAZONO, NIINO and MATSUDA to incorporate the teachings of Miura, because they all directed to using mobile device in manufacturing operation, to make the system wherein the mobile device includes at least an unmanned aircraft capable of transferring an article to be used in the workspace. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to transfer the workpiece among the manufacturing stations, as Miura teaches in abstract.
Regarding claim 4, NAKAZONO further teaches:
the stationary device comprises a plurality of stationary devices, and the mobile device comprises a plurality of mobile devices (Fig. 1 [0011] [0013] manufacturing system 1 including component mounting lines L1 to L3 and unmanned transfer vehicles V), and
wherein the server derives, based on the operational state data, at least one stationary device having a low operating rate from among the plurality of stationary devices and/or at least one mobile device having a low operating rate from among the plurality of mobile devices ([0042] occurrence of the supply delay i.e. “at least one stationary device having a low operating rate from among the plurality of stationary devices and/or at least one mobile device having a low operating rate from among the plurality of mobile devices”), and corrects the operational state of the at least one stationary device having the low operating rate and/or the operational state of the at least one mobile device having the low operating rate such that the production deviation is reduced ([0045] – [0048] priority work instruction involving the unmanned transfer vehicle V and priority worker of the mounting machine is implemented to avoid the shortage of parts caused by the delay i.e. “corrects an operational state of at least one selected from the stationary device and the mobile device such that the production deviation is reduced”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 depends on claim 1, NAKAZONO, NIINO and MATSUDA together teach the claim elements of claim 1. However, NAKAZONO, NIINO and MATSUDA do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
in a case where a production deviation is caused due to a shortage of the number of workpieces machined or assembled by the stationary device, the server corrects the operational state by increasing the production by way of addition of another stationary device and the addition involving a change in the layout,
the addition of any of the stationary devices is performed by installing a new stationary device or operating an unused stationary device, and
the server corrects the movement plan information such that the supply of the workpieces to be transferred by the mobile device increases, with correcting the operational state.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 depends on claim 1, NAKAZONO, NIINO and MATSUDA together teach the claim elements of claim 1.
NAKAZONO further teaches:
in a case where a production deviation is caused with respect to the stationary devices due to a shortage of supply of the workpieces transferred by the mobile device, the server corrects the movement plan information to increase the supply of the workpieces to be transferred by the mobile device such that the operational state is corrected so as to reduce the production deviation.
However, NAKAZONO, NIINO and MATSUDA do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
in a case where a production deviation is caused due to a shortage of the number of workpieces machined or assembled by the stationary device, the server corrects the operational state by increasing the production by way of addition of another stationary device and the addition involving a change in the layout,
the addition of any of the stationary devices is performed by installing a new stationary device or operating an unused stationary device, and
the server corrects the movement plan information such that the supply of the workpieces to be transferred by the mobile device increases, with correcting the operational state.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 depends on claim 1, NAKAZONO, NIINO and MATSUDA together teach the claim elements of claim 1.
NAKAZONO further teaches:
in a case where a production deviation is caused with respect to the stationary devices due to a shortage of supply of the workpieces transferred by the mobile device, the server corrects the movement plan information to increase the supply of the workpieces to be transferred by the mobile device such that the operational state is corrected so as to reduce the production deviation.
However, NAKAZONO, NIINO and MATSUDA do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
in a case where a production deviation is caused due to a shortage of the number of workpieces machined or assembled by the stationary device, the server corrects the operational state by increasing the production by way of addition of another stationary device and the addition involving a change in the layout,
the addition of any of the stationary devices is performed by installing a new stationary device or operating an unused stationary device,
the server corrects the movement plan information such that the supply of the workpieces to be transferred by the mobile device increases, with correcting the operational state, and
before a stationary device is actually added, simulate the addition of the stationary device with a change in the layout, and addition of movement plan information.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 1, NAKAZONO, NIINO and MATSUDA together teach the claim elements of claim 1. However, NAKAZONO, NIINO and MATSUDA do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
the operational states of the stationary devices are corrected at a timing when a program for the stationary devices to machine or assemble workpieces is changed, or when workpieces to be machined or assembled by the stationary devices are switched to different workpieces.
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 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 Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. 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.
/M.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 NAKAZONO is the prior art of record
2 Miura is the prior art of record