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 . Claims 1-20 filed on 9/20/2023 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 9/20/2023 has been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9/20/2023 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 9/20/2023 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
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 towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites: “determining an engineering process to be performed on a workpiece, wherein the engineering process has one or more engineering process elements associated with one of an assembly process or a maintenance process for the workpiece;”, “causing the at least one AI model to process the sensor data to generate at least one classification result, wherein the at least one classification result indicates whether the sensor data indicates whether each engineering process element of the one or more engineering process elements was correctly performed;”, and “validating execution of the engineering process in response to each engineering process element of the one or more engineering process elements being correctly performed;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of determining a process to be performed on a workpiece, identifying it was done correctly, and validating each step was performed based on received data which are limitations which can all reasonably be performed in the human mind which fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For instance, claim 1 further recites, “providing a visual notification to a user that the execution of the engineering process has been validated.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just simply provides a notification to a user which just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, claim 1 recites, “receiving sensor data from one or more sensors associated with the workpiece, the sensor data reflecting at least a physical state of the workpiece;” and “providing the sensor data to the at least one AI model;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, the limitations of, “at least one processor” and “a non-transitory computer readable medium”, as generally recited represent merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering engineering process performance data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claims 9 and 17 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are thus rejected using the same rationale as provided above.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. For instance, claims 6-8, 14-16, and 19-20, each include limitations of validating work, identifying/validating parts, or validating part location, usage, placement, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, are all limitations which can reasonably be performed in the human mind and thus fall within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 5, 13, and 18, each include limitations of displaying results to a user, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong two, just merely applies the use of the judicial exception. Claim 4 discloses elements of transferring data, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, claims 2-4 and 10-12, describe various limitations detailing what the engineering elements comprise of, technician actions, and type of data validated, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, provide limitations which provide general descriptions of various elements without providing inventive steps and thus just generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering engineering process performance data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greco et al. (US PGPUB 20220301266).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 17; Greco teaches; A system, comprising:
at least one processor; and (Greco; at least Fig. 1; processor (104))
a non-transitory computer readable medium connected to the processor and having at least one artificial intelligence (AI) model stored therein, and further having a computer program for execution by the processor stored therein, the computer program including instructions for: (Greco; at least Figs. 1, 4, and 6; paragraphs [0002] and [0016]; disclose data storage device (106) which includes a plurality of machine learning models which are used in conjunction with augmented reality to receive visual/audio input and generate output instructions that are presented to the user’s augmented reality display to aid in performing tasks)
determining an engineering process to be performed on a workpiece, wherein the engineering process has one or more engineering process elements associated with one of an assembly process or a maintenance process for the workpiece; (Greco; at least Fig. 4; paragraphs [0055] and [0071]; disclose wherein the system and method includes making a determination as to whether an assembly step is to take place)
receiving sensor data from one or more sensors associated with the workpiece, the sensor data reflecting at least a physical state of the workpiece; (Greco; at least Fig. 6; paragraph [0075]; disclose wherein the system and method includes taking video and audio data of the object being worked on which provides a reflection of the physical state of the object)
providing the sensor data to the at least one AI model; (Greco; at least Fig. 6; paragraph [0076]; disclose providing the audio/visual sensor data to a machine learning model for review)
causing the at least one AI model to process the sensor data to generate at least one classification result, wherein the at least one classification result indicates whether the sensor data indicates whether each engineering process element of the one or more engineering process elements was correctly performed; (Greco; at least Fig. 6; paragraphs [0076]-[0077]; disclose wherein the machine learning model can process the sensor data and make a determination if the assembly was done correctly or incorrectly)
validating execution of the engineering process in response to each engineering process element of the one or more engineering process elements being correctly performed; and (Greco; at least Figs. 3-4 and 6; paragraphs [0076]-[0077] and [0081]; disclose wherein the system and method includes validating each step and iterates until it determines that all procedural steps have been completed)
providing a visual notification to a user that the execution of the engineering process has been validated. (Greco; at least paragraphs [0078] and [0083]; disclose wherein the results of a successfully completed assembly task is displayed).
Regarding Claims 2 and 10; Greco teaches; The system of claim 1, wherein a first engineering process element of the one or more engineering process elements comprises a step of manipulating at least a part of the workpiece. (Greco; at least paragraphs [0076] and [0077]).
Regarding Claims 3 and 11; Greco teaches; The system of claim 2, wherein the first engineering process element comprises a step of at least one of a technician manipulating at least a part of the workpiece according to a specified parameter, or a technician manipulating at least a part of the workpiece using a specified tool. (Greco; at least paragraphs [0076] and [0077]).
Regarding Claim 4; Greco teaches; The system of claim 1, wherein the computer program further includes instructions for providing validation information to a storage system, wherein the validation information is associated with at least one of verification that the engineering process was performed correctly, tracking of maintenance, tracking of parts, or tracking of health history. (Greco; at least Figs. 4 and 6; paragraphs [0076]-[0077]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 13; Greco teaches; The system of claim 1, wherein the computer program further includes instructions for providing engineering process data associated with the engineering process to a display, the engineering process data causing the display to display a graphic representation of a list of sub processes and engineering process elements associated with the engineering process. (Greco; at least paragraph [0072]).
Regarding Claims 6, 14, and 19; Greco teaches; The system of claim 1, wherein a first AI model of the least one AI model is an object recognition model, and wherein the instructions for causing the at least one AI model to process the sensor data include instructions for causing the first AI model to perform object recognition on the sensor data. (Greco; at least paragraphs [0037]-[0038]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 15; Greco teaches; The system of claim 6, wherein the instructions for causing the first AI model to perform object recognition comprise instructions for causing the first AI model to perform: identifying a part of interest; and validating the part of interest. (Greco; at least Fig. 3; paragraphs [0037]-[0038] and [0077]-[0078]).
Regarding Claims 8 and 16; Greco teaches; The system of claim 7, wherein the instructions for causing the first AI model to perform object recognition further comprise instructions for causing the first AI model to perform: validating at least one of a part location, a part usage, or part placement, of the part of interest. (Greco; at least paragraphs [0077]-[0078]).
Regarding Claim 18; Greco teaches; The system of claim 17, further comprising a display; wherein the at least one processing circuit is further configured for providing engineering process data associated with the engineering process to the display, the engineering process data causing the display to display a graphic representation of at least a portion of the plurality of engineering process elements. (Greco; at least paragraph [0072]).
Regarding Claim 20; Greco teaches; The system of claim 19, wherein the at least one processing circuit being configured for causing the first AI model to perform object recognition comprises the at least one processing circuit being configured for causing the first AI model to perform: identifying a part of interest; validating the part of interest; and validating at least one of a part location, a part usage, or part placement, of the part of interest. (Greco; at least Fig. 3; paragraphs [0037]-[0038] and [0077]-[0078]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peacock et al. (US Patent 10,366,521): disclose an augmented reality system and method which uses AR glasses to assist workers during assembly processes by providing superimposed instructions on items in workers field of view along with instructions on how to connect the visualized items.
Schmirler et al. (US PGPUB 20180130260): discloses an augmented/virtual reality production system and method which allows operators to use AR glasses which provide guidance and instructions to the operators to help assist them when repairing production equipment.
Oberai et al. (US PGPUB 20210398831): discloses an automated assistant for repair/maintenance of wafer-handling systems which utilizes natural language models to receive questions from personnel and then provide AR displays to help guide the personnel in repair/maintenance tasks based on the provided question.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117