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
2. This action is responsive to the Application filed on 12/14/2023. A filing date 12/14/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 8, 15 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a task builder configured to receive, determine, update and send data in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive, from one or more workstations, a request for a task list, wherein the request includes one or more identifiers; determine, based on the one or more identifiers and product order specific information received from a scheduling system, a task list; update the task list, wherein the update to the task list is based on build history, one or more upstream prerequisite statuses, or a combination thereof; and send, to the one or more workstations, the updated task list ([0007]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denis Sverdlov et al (US Publication 20220089237 A1, hereinafter Sverdlov), and in view of Daniel Richard Royce et al (US Publication 20190276241 A1, hereinafter Royce).
As for independent claim 1, Sverdlov discloses: A method comprising:
receiving, from one or more workstations (Sverdlov: [1354], AMR docking stations are used to charge the AMRs and park them. As defined, there must be at least one AMR docking station present in any robotic production environment layout. Each docking station is assigned with certain type and quantity of AMR), a request for a task list (Sverdlov: [1238]-[1240], a. Sequence number of the operation step in the current operation sequence. b. Operation step name. c. List of equipment, which is required for this operation step. The equipment can be presented in the form of links to particular equipment units, for example, as listed in an Equipment Library, or in the form of a layout; [1263], the settings layer 417 comprise a list of particular parts 428 required for performing the operation steps of the rService, which is to be matching 429 with the range of parts attributes 421, and all available recipes 430, 431, 432 for each operation step of each set of operation steps 423 of the rService), wherein the request includes one or more identifiers (Sverdlov: [0492], Entities are ascribed a unique identifier. The identifier is an arbitrary and universally unique number against which aliases and metadata can be associated in a database); determining, based on the one or more identifiers and product order specific information received from a scheduling system, a task list (Sverdlov: [0517], components are ordered and their delivery schedules, based on the real-time data; [2468], The vehicle assembly software system can send its requirements for composite panels to the composite panel production system, for just-in-time production. Panels are hence made to order, and supplied just-in-time, with the vehicle assembly system fully informed of the status and delivery schedule of newly built composite panels, so that it can automatically schedule its vehicle build operations); updating the task list, wherein updating the task list is based on a build history (Sverdlov: [0821], As an example, the identify information includes a blockchain that enhances traceability by tracking how and where each component has previously been deployed (i.e., historical date); [1010], a solution obtained on the previous iteration can be used as a baseline for an objective value; [1085], performing a series of operations where a sequence of the performance is determined by an outcome of the previous operation or by reference to external circumstances that are monitored and measured within the robotic production environment itself), one or more prerequisite statuses (Sverdlov: [1128], a control-flow approach when a process is defined as sequential/parallel operations each having a dependency on a finish state of previous operations; for more details regarding prerequisite status, see Royce), or a combination thereof ; and sending, to the one or more workstations, the updated task list (Sverdlov: [0542], Unified configuration and update procedures; [1277], An information about any updates or modifications of the available rServices, for example, when a new rService is created, is posted by the rServiceHub 438 on Blackboard 442 so as the information becomes automatically available for the OCS of the microfactory. In such a way, the OCS is able to use the new rService in the microfactory almost simultaneously after the rService is registered in the rServiceHub).
Sverdlov discloses managing vehicle robotic production including updating production planning based on the monitored required data and production environment statuses ([1336]-[1337], [2468]) and based on a dependency on a finish state of previous operations ([1128]), Sverdlov does not clearly disclose prerequisite statuses, in an analogous art of automation manufacturing management, Royce discloses: one or more prerequisite statuses (Royce: [0208], The time span described by each demand item specifies the time range during which such a product should arrive at the unit operation station, in this case the unit operation station being an unloading station 20. This time range ensures that the demand item does not describe a need for a product that would arrive earlier than a prerequisite product, nor later than a postrequisite product);
Sverdlov and Royce are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring, automation manufacturing management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Sverdlov using the teachings of Royce to include considering prerequisite product status and postrequisite product status. It would provide Sverdlov’s method with enhanced capabilities of scheduling operation time with more accuracy.
As for claim 2, Sverdlov-Royce discloses: storing, from a process editing tool, one or more configurations associated with the one or more workstations (Sverdlov: [0778], The generated configurations 282 of hardware, ECUs, networks and SWC allocation can then be approved or edited by the user through Vehicle Builder's UI. Modifications to the generated configurations can be introduced by the user either directly, when the user manually changes the hardware configuration or modifies the software selection or allocation, or through modifications of any input data or involved constraints and requirements to enable a new cycle of the automated design process by the Auto Wiring tool).
As for claim 3, Sverdlov-Royce discloses: wherein one or more configurations include configuration hardware data, a list of component types, a list of tasks with configuration details associated with one or more workstations, or a combination thereof (Sverdlov: [0778], The generated configurations 282 of hardware, ECUs, networks and SWC allocation can then be approved or edited by the user through Vehicle Builder's UI; [2123], All of the AMRs moving through the factory are automatically aware of the location and function of this new technology cell since the exact location, shape, properties and functions of all cells and other physical features in the factory space (e.g. power outlets, human work stations, lighting rigs, roof supports etc.) are communicated to the Blackboard and then are captured in the FCM).
As for claim 4, Sverdlov-Royce discloses: the request for the task list is generated by: a software controller of the one or more workstations; or
a data translation service associated with the software controller (Sverdlov: [0019]-[0020], the robotic production environment is configured to be automatically reconfigurable through software-implemented changes to automatically: make different components, to assemble different types of vehicles, to assemble different configurations of the same type of vehicles, to use different assembly techniques, to use different components, or to transport vehicle parts or structures through the physical environment of the factory using alternate physical routes. [0020] the robotic production environment is automatically reconfigurable through software-implemented changes that alter one or more of: the function of robotic agents, the physical location or arrangement of robotic agents, the number of operative robotic agents; the routes taken by AMRs).
As for claim 5, Sverdlov-Royce discloses: wherein the software controller is configured to monitor a progression of an assembly through each of the one or more workstations (Sverdlov: [1337], monitoring a progress of the robotic production environment creation and related KPIs).
As for claim 6, Sverdlov-Royce discloses: wherein one or more task results are sent, to the database, by: the software controller (Sverdlov: [0019]-[0020], the robotic production environment is configured to be automatically reconfigurable through software-implemented changes to automatically: make different components, to assemble different types of vehicles, to assemble different configurations of the same type of vehicles, to use different assembly techniques, to use different components, or to transport vehicle parts or structures through the physical environment of the factory using alternate physical routes. [0020] the robotic production environment is automatically reconfigurable through software-implemented changes that alter one or more of: the function of robotic agents, the physical location or arrangement of robotic agents, the number of operative robotic agents; the routes taken by AMRs); or a data reporting service associated with the software controller (Sverdlov: [0534], Both hardware and software modules are secure, intelligent, and can report their own health status to the Arrival cloud).
As for claim 7, Sverdlov-Royce discloses: wherein the one or more identifiers include a vehicle identification number, a component identification, a unit identification, a part identification, a carrier identification, or a combination thereof (Sverdlov: [0492], Entities are ascribed a unique identifier. The identifier is an arbitrary and universally unique number against which aliases and metadata can be associated in a database).
As per claims 8-14, they recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claims 1-7, thus the rationales for rejecting claims 1-7 are incorporated herein.
As per claims 15-20, they recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claims 1-5, 7, thus the rationales for rejecting claims 1-5, 7 are incorporated herein.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Rana (US Publication 20210232989 A1) MOBILE VEHICLES IN MANUFACTURING
Wells (US Publication 20200140028) AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE GUIDANCE SYSTEM AND METHOD
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
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.
/Hua Lu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118