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 .
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, the language “identify, for the actual vehicle sequence for the assembly line, over-cycle risks based on the identified vehicle groups” is indefinite. That is, it is unclear what is being defined by “over-cycle risks” even in light of the specification. Indeed, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be regarded as definite when it is unclear if any cycle time that exceeds a target cycle time is regarded as “over-cycle risk” or if there is certain probability value, or range of values that is regarded as “risk”, or otherwise (see e.g., Spec. para. 40 teaching sending “risk” alert signal with exemplary probability values—but not defining metes and bounds or “risk” probabilities).
Further, regarding claims 1 and 9, the language “identify vehicle groups having different vehicle characteristics and over-cycle distributions for each vehicle group or a back-to-back sequence of any given vehicle group” (emphasis added by Examiner) is non-sensical and thus indefinite. Here, it is unclear what the language “or a back-to-back sequence” is modifying or how this language is modifying the claim even in light of the specification.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
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 of this title, 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, 6-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daferner (US 7,039,484) in view of Kienzle (US 2013/0060371), Domrose (US 2010/0114353) and legal precedent.
Daferner teaches a system and method for identifying over-cycle risks associated with an assembly line including at least one conveyor configured to move vehicles through a plurality of footprints in unison, each footprint representing a location where vehicle content is assembled (fig. 1 and col. 5, ln. 34-col. 6, ln. 65 showing production line for manufacturing motor vehicle and respective footprints such as body assembly, interior assembly, chassis; col. 3, ln. 5-25 teaching use of computer to analyze risks in vehicle production process by optimizing various variables related to cycle times of the manufacturing sub-processes, wherein determining “degree of delivery reliability” can be regarded as identifying “over-cycle risks”), the system comprising
(re: claim 9) a computing module configured to:
receive historical data (col. 6, ln. 9-col. 8, ln. 45 teaching that computer performs simulations based on actual cycle times measured from past production of different or identical vehicles at each sub-process);
for each footprint of the conveyor (Id. teaching that data may include “an identifier of the variant of the technical product”, i.e., different vehicle, and “beginning and end of the cycle through the respective subprocess”):
identify vehicle groups and over-cycle distributions for each vehicle group (Id. teaching that cycle time data of each vehicle variant is used to derive a “planned” and “maximum” cycle time for each sub-process and then used to calculate a distribution of elements related to said “maximum” cycle times);
determining whether either the number of vehicles in the first or second vehicle group or a difference between the over-cycle distributions for the first and second vehicle groups satisfies a threshold condition (Id. teaching “on time” analysis of different vehicle groups to determine if certain number of elements of a vehicle group achieve a threshold level of delivery reliability); and
in response to satisfying the threshold condition, cease identifying the vehicle groups (Id. inherent that simulation ends when purpose of simulation, i.e., satisfactory condition is reached).
(re: claims 1 and 6-8) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation of the combined device described below.
Daferner as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claims 1, 9) identify vehicle groups having different vehicle characteristics;
calculating an over-cycle distribution for a first vehicle group having the vehicle characteristic and an over-cycle distribution for a second vehicle group not having the vehicle characteristic;
receive an actual vehicle sequence for the assembly line; and
identify, for the actual vehicle sequence for the assembly line, over-cycle risks based on the identified vehicle groups and the over-cycle distributions for each vehicle group
(re: claims 6, 14) wherein the computing module is configured to:
generate and transmit an alert signal indicating the over-cycle risks;
(re: claim 7, 15) wherein the over-cycle risks include probabilities of different over-cycle times at a footprint of the assembly line;
(re: claim 8, 16) wherein the computing module is configured to transmit the alert signal to a supervisor control module.
Kienzle, however, teaches that it is well-known in the vehicle manufacturing arts to optimize vehicle production by analyzing over-cycle risks, i.e., production delays, related to vehicle sequence and to specific vehicle characteristics (fig. 4; para. 54-57 teaching sequencing module that analyzes delays risks related to sequencing of vehicles with specific features, e.g., color, options or complexity, and then generates a specific production sequence).
Domrose also teaches that it is well-known in the manufacturing arts to optimize processes by re-ordering work sequences and, moreover, that alarm signals can be generated to the supervising parties that allows early intervention to fix deficiencies (fig.1 showing Alarm Module connected to Optimizer; para. 10, 31-35, 47, 56 teaching calculation of cycle-time variants for different manufacturing steps and sending alerts for potential breach of delivery time or other deficiencies in the manufacturing process, e.g., generating a new scheduling plan to prevent shutdown of automobile production line).
Indeed, the claimed features relating to determining over-risks-including probabilities of different over-cycle times- and over-cycle distributions for different vehicle characteristics or footprints can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables. This is especially applicable in the vehicle manufacturing arts as one seeking to optimize the manufacturing process would know to analyze these type of operating parameters/variables as demonstrated by the prior art above. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and in legal precedent as described above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Daferner for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
August 24, 2025