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. The action is responsive to the communications filed on 6/18/2026. Claims 16-17, 20-29 are pending in the case. Claim 16 is amended. Claims 18-19 are cancelled. Claim 16 is independent claim. Claims 16-17, 20-29 are rejected.
Summary of claims
3. Claims 16-17, 20-29 are pending,
Claim 16 is amended,
Claims 1-15 were previously cancelled,
Claims 18-19 are cancelled,
Claim 16 is independent claim,
Claims 16-17, 20-29 are rejected.
Remarks
4. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 6/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-17, 20-29 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive in view of new rejection ground(s).
Applicant argued Pegido did not teach the features cited in claim 16, such as, “wherein the assigning of the processing steps comprises matching the processing capability of at least one of the processing machines with a processing requirement for carrying out the processing step.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Pedigo clearly disclose “Work cell 30 may include a specific and/or predetermined layout and/or capability that may be defined by a number of machines 100 within work cell 30, a current location of each of machines 100 within work cell 30, a range of motion of each of machines 100 within work cell 30, and/or a manufacturing capability of each of machines 100 within work cell 30. Thus, work cell 30 and/or the layout thereof may define portion(s) of manufactured component 40 that may be accessed and/or operated on by machines 100 within work cell 30 and/or may define specific manufacturing operations that may be performed on the specific portions(s) of manufactured component 40” (Pedigo: [0024]), further, receiving the work cell layout may include receiving data that represents a number of machines that are present within the work cell, a location of each of the plurality of machines, a range of motion of each of the plurality of machines, and/or a manufacturing capability of each of the plurality of machines (Pedigo: [0032]), examples of the manufacturing capability include a location of each machine in the available portion of the plurality of machines, a spatial work zone of each machine in the available portion of the plurality of machines, a rate at which a given machine in the available portion of the plurality of machines completes a give task of the plurality of tasks, and/or an ability, or inability, of a given machine in the available portion of the plurality of machines to complete a given task of the plurality of tasks (Pedigo: [0060]), that is, task assignments are adjusted and optimized based on a manufacturing capability (skills) of the available portion of the machine, a proper machine is selected to carry out the manufacturing task because its manufacturing capability is matching the specific requirement so this specific portion of machine is capable to process the manufacturing task.
Applicant argued Pedigo did not teach the features cited in claim 16, such as “wherein the matching of the processing capability comprises matching at least one technical-functional processing capability including checking the presence of a tool required for carrying out the processing step by the processing machine in question.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Pedigo discloses monitoring each machine’s operation state including “available” or “not available” (Pedigo: [0019]), that is, Pedigo discloses checking machine’s capabilities including whether or not the portion of the machine is available to carry out the manufacturing task. Pedigo does not clearly disclose checking a tool’s presence/availability, in an analogous art of manufacturing automation system, Olsson discloses retrieving performance variables from different sources relating to the metal working process, such as determined tolerances of produced items, process time, tooling availability, machine availability, material availability, tooling lifetime, material removal rate, operator working environment, order stock, delivery time, required pressing position and/or performance variable data from previous operations and/or performance variable data for subsequent operations (Olsson: [0024]), that is, the capabilities and availability of the tool are monitored and checked so the manufacturing process will be carried out without delay.
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.
5. Claims 16-17, 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuel Fedigo et al (US Publication 20140067108 A1, hereinafter Pedigo), and in view of Oliver Fenker (US Publication 20180109083 A1, hereinafter Fenker), and further in view of Magnus Norberg Olsson (US Publication 20190030582 A1, hereinafter Olsson).
As for independent claim 16, Pedigo discloses: A method for manufacturing an electrical switchgear (Abstract, Systems and methods for the dynamic control of task assignments in a fabrication process that employs a plurality of machines to fabricate a manufactured component), comprising: a. providing planning data relating to an electrical switchgear to be manufactured ([0006], the systems and methods further may include receiving a work cell layout and/or a description of the manufactured component and creating a production plan that defines the plurality of tasks based, at least in part, on the work cell layout and/or the description of the manufactured component), said planning data comprising at least geometric data of the electrical switchgear to be manufactured ([0033], Receiving the description of the manufactured component at 210 may include receiving any suitable description of the manufactured component. As illustrative, non-exclusive examples, this may include receiving data that represents a geometry of the manufactured component, such as a computer aided design and/or other spatial representation of the manufactured component); b. determining required processing steps for manufacturing the electrical switchgear according to the planning data ([0063], select specific tasks to be performed by single machine 100 and/or select an order for the specific tasks to be performed by single machine 100. This may include selecting the specific tasks and/or the order for the specific tasks such that an overall time to complete the selected tasks is decreased, an overall number of transitions between a first type of task and a second type of task is decreased, and/or an overall accuracy and/or precision of a location of a given task of the plurality of tasks relative to a location of a remainder of the tasks of the plurality of tasks is increased); c. assigning the processing steps to at least one processing machine of a plurality of processing machines according to at least one selection criterion (Abstract, The plurality of task assignments may include a plurality of tasks that are to be completed during fabrication of the manufactured component, and the executing may include initiating a respective task assignment of the plurality of task assignments with each machine in the available portion of the plurality of machines, thereby fabricating at least a portion of the manufactured component); and
d. performing the processing step with the at least one processing machine to which the processing step has been assigned (Abstract, The plurality of task assignments may include a plurality of tasks that are to be completed during fabrication of the manufactured component, and the executing may include initiating a respective task assignment of the plurality of task assignments with each machine in the available portion of the plurality of machines, thereby fabricating at least a portion of the manufactured component), wherein the determining comprises matching an actual state of the electrical switchgear or of a component of the electrical switchgear with a target state of the electrical switchgear, wherein the target state is predetermined by the planning data ([0019], Each machine 100 within manufacturing system 20 may be defined by a plurality of operational states including at least an available state, in which the machine 100 is available and/or able to perform tasks that are associated with the fabrication of manufactured component 40, and an unavailable state, in which the machine 100 is not available and/or able to perform tasks that are associated with the fabrication of manufactured component 40; [0024], Work cell 30 may include a specific and/or predetermined layout and/or capability that may be defined by a number of machines 100 within work cell 30, a current location of each of machines 100 within work cell 30, a range of motion of each of machines 100 within work cell 30, and/or a manufacturing capability of each of machines 100 within work cell 30), wherein the assigning of the processing steps comprises matching the processing capability of at least one of the processing machines with a processing requirement for carrying out the processing step ([0024], Work cell 30 may include a specific and/or predetermined layout and/or capability that may be defined by a number of machines 100 within work cell 30, a current location of each of machines 100 within work cell 30, a range of motion of each of machines 100 within work cell 30, and/or a manufacturing capability of each of machines 100 within work cell 30. Thus, work cell 30 and/or the layout thereof may define portion(s) of manufactured component 40 that may be accessed and/or operated on by machines 100 within work cell 30 and/or may define specific manufacturing operations that may be performed on the specific portions(s) of manufactured component 40; [0032], receiving the work cell layout may include receiving data that represents a number of machines that are present within the work cell, a location of each of the plurality of machines, a range of motion of each of the plurality of machines, and/or a manufacturing capability of each of the plurality of machines; [0060], examples of the manufacturing capability include a location of each machine in the available portion of the plurality of machines, a spatial work zone of each machine in the available portion of the plurality of machines, a rate at which a given machine in the available portion of the plurality of machines completes a give task of the plurality of tasks, and/or an ability, or inability, of a given machine in the available portion of the plurality of machines to complete a given task of the plurality of tasks); and wherein the matching of the processing capability comprises matching at least one technical-functional processing capability including checking the presence of [a tool] required for carrying out the processing step by the processing machine in question ([0019], Each machine 100 within manufacturing system 20 may be defined by a plurality of operational states including at least an available state, in which the machine 100 is available and/or able to perform tasks that are associated with the fabrication of manufactured component 40, and an unavailable state, in which the machine 100 is not available and/or able to perform tasks that are associated with the fabrication of manufactured component 40).
Pedigo discloses a dynamic control of task assignments in a manufacturing process but does not clearly disclose the manufacturing of switchgear, Fenker discloses: A method for manufacturing an electrical switchgear (Fenker: Abstract, A method for assembling electric switching systems includes wiring and/or connecting electric components together at specific connection points may be used in conjunction with an assembly support device for simplifying and/or checking the assembly of such electric switching systems);
Pedigo and Fenker are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, manufacturing automation system. 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 Pedigo using the teachings of Fenker to include a specific task planning for manufacturing electric switching systems. It would provide Pedigo’s method with enhanced capabilities of meeting specific requirements in electric switching workflow process.
Further, Pedigo discloses monitoring machine’s availability does not clearly disclose considering an availability of one component required in the process, in another analogous art of optimum operation performance for a working process, Olsson discloses: wherein the matching of the processing capability comprises matching at least one technical-functional processing capability including checking the presence of a tool required for carrying out the processing step by the processing machine in question (Olsson: [0024], properties related to the working environment for an operator may be taken into consideration, such as operator availability, avoidance and heavy lifts for operators, less demanding manual tasks for operators during night shifts, such as machine reconfiguration; [0028], retrieving performance variables from different sources relating to the metal working process, such as determined tolerances of produced items, process time, tooling availability, machine availability, material availability, tooling lifetime, material removal rate, operator working environment, order stock, delivery time, required pressing position and/or performance variable data from previous operations and/or performance variable data for subsequent operations; [0063], Calculation is also made of the optimum tooling configuration based on tooling availability).
Pedigo and Olsson are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, manufacturing automation system. 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 Pedigo using the teachings of Olsson to include determining availability information associated with the manufacturing component and optimize operation process based on these data. It would provide Pedigo’s method with enhanced capabilities of optimizing the operation performance for a working process as suggested by Olsson.
As for claim 17, Pedigo-Fenker-Olsson discloses: wherein the providing planning data comprises providing planning data relating to a parts list of the electrical switchgear to be manufactured (Pedigo: [0025], The plurality of discrete manufactured parts may be operatively attached to one another during fabrication of manufactured component 40; [0123], the manufactured component defines a plurality of discrete manufactured parts).
claims 18-19 cancelled
As for claim 20, Pedigo-Fenker-Olsson discloses: which further comprises detecting at least one technical-functional processing capability per processing machine (Pedigo: [0019], Each machine 100 within manufacturing system 20 may be defined by a plurality of operational states including at least an available state, in which the machine 100 is available and/or able to perform tasks that are associated with the fabrication of manufactured component 40), wherein the detected processing capabilities are stored in a memory with assignment of the associated processing machine, which memory is accessed for the assigning of the processing steps (Pedigo: [0029], storage medium 58 that may store one or more executable instructions; [0071], receiving one or more fabrication parameters, optionally wherein the one or more fabrication parameters includes data representing at least one of a machine retraction equation, a machine motion timing sequence, and a machine velocity for at least a portion of the plurality of machines).
As for claim 21, Pedigo-Fenker-Olsson discloses: which further comprises, after the assigning and before the performing of the processing step, performing an actual validation by the processing machine intended for performing the processing step, wherein at least one of availability of at least one component required for manufacturing the electrical switchgear and of a processing tool for performing the processing step is checked (Pedigo: [0049], the monitoring may include detecting the operational state, or status, of each of the plurality of machines and/or detecting a process variable that is indicative of the operational status of each of the plurality of machines).
As for claim 22, Pedigo-Fenker-Olsson discloses: wherein, in the case that the actual validation results in no availability or insufficient availability, another processing machine is intended for performing the processing step or the geometric data of the electrical switchgear to be manufactured is replanned taking into account an actual availability of tools of the processing machine intended for performing the processing step and/or taking into account an actual availability of the components required for manufacturing the electrical switchgear (Pedigo: [0012], while performing one or more tasks that are associated with the first task assignment, a first machine 100 may be unable, or unavailable, to complete the first task assignment, such as due to failure of the first machine 100, maintenance of the first machine 100, repair of the first machine 100, and/or an inability of the first machine 100 to reach a location of a portion of the first task assignment (such as due to another machine 100 blocking the location and/or the other machine 100 being present between the first machine 100 and the location). Under these conditions, manufacturing system 20 may dynamically and/or automatically re-allocate at least one task from the first task assignment to a second machine 100, thereby continuing the fabrication of manufactured component 40 despite the inability of the first machine 100 to complete the first task assignment).
As for claim 23, Pedigo-Fenker-Olsson discloses: wherein, in the case that the actual validation results in a required tool being available but a tool change being required for using the tool, if possible, the processing step is assigned to another processing machine with equivalent technical-functional processing capability (Pedigo: [0012], while performing one or more tasks that are associated with the first task assignment, a first machine 100 may be unable, or unavailable, to complete the first task assignment, such as due to failure of the first machine 100, maintenance of the first machine 100, repair of the first machine 100, and/or an inability of the first machine 100 to reach a location of a portion of the first task assignment (such as due to another machine 100 blocking the location and/or the other machine 100 being present between the first machine 100 and the location). Under these conditions, manufacturing system 20 may dynamically and/or automatically re-allocate at least one task from the first task assignment to a second machine 100, thereby continuing the fabrication of manufactured component 40 despite the inability of the first machine 100 to complete the first task assignment).
As for claim 24, Pedigo-Fenker-Olsson discloses: wherein the assigning of the processing steps according to at least one selection criterion for at least one and preferably for several of the plurality of processing machines comprises: determining an availability of at least one component required for the processing step or at least one tool and assigning the processing step to those of the processing machines which have the lowest utilization with a given availability (Olsson: [0024], properties related to the working environment for an operator may be taken into consideration, such as operator availability, avoidance and heavy lifts for operators, less demanding manual tasks for operators during night shifts, such as machine reconfiguration; [0028], retrieving performance variables from different sources relating to the metal working process, such as determined tolerances of produced items, process time, tooling availability, machine availability, material availability, tooling lifetime, material removal rate, operator working environment, order stock, delivery time, required pressing position and/or performance variable data from previous operations and/or performance variable data for subsequent operations; [0063], Calculation is also made of the optimum tooling configuration based on tooling availability).
As for claim 25, Pedigo-Fenker-Olsson discloses: wherein at least the steps a. to c. are performed with a data processing system, to which the plurality of processing machines are connected via a data interface, wherein the processing machines are configured to send a machine profile comprising at least one processing capability of the respective processing machine to the data processing system after the connection via the data interface (Fenker: [0023], the actual position and/or actual alignment of the component and/or the actual position of its connector point can be crossfaded on the display with the corresponding desired position and/or desired alignment that can be acquired from the e-CAD system or can be seen from said e-CAD file to illustrate deviations of the assembled actual position or actual alignment from the desired position or desired alignment).
As for claim 26, Pedigo-Fenker-Olsson discloses: wherein the machine profile is used as a selection criterion for the assigning of the processing steps to at least one of the plurality of processing machines, wherein the processing machine preferably sends an availability of at least one component required for the processing step or at least one tool required for the processing step to the data processing system periodically, continuously or upon request of the data processing system after the connection and the sending of the at least one processing capability, which is preferably used as a further selection criterion for the assigning of the processing steps (Fenker: [0023], the actual position and/or actual alignment of the component and/or the actual position of its connector point can be crossfaded on the display with the corresponding desired position and/or desired alignment that can be acquired from the e-CAD system or can be seen from said e-CAD file to illustrate deviations of the assembled actual position or actual alignment from the desired position or desired alignment).
As for claim 27, Pedigo-Fenker-Olsson discloses: wherein at least the steps a. to c. are performed with a data processing system, to which the plurality of processing machines are connected via a data interface, wherein the processing machines are configured to monitor the assigned processing step for complete and correct execution and to send a corresponding processing protocol to the data processing system (Pedigo: [0029], Computer system 50 also may include a work cell controller 54. Work cell controller 54 may provide an interface between schedule controller 52 and machine controller 56 and may control the operation of one or more work cells 30 within manufacturing system 20; [0049], Monitoring the process variable at 250 may include monitoring any suitable process variable that defines, is associated with, and/or is otherwise indicative of the available portion of the plurality of machines and/or an ability of a given machine to perform a given task).
6. Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fedigo and Fenker and Olsson as applied on claim 16, and further in view of Christian Barth et al (US Publication 20220155765 A1, hereinafter Barth).
As for claim 28, Pedigo-Fenker does not disclose Automation Markup Language data, Barth discloses: wherein the determining of required processing steps comprises extracting processing data from the planning data, for which the planning data are preferably provided as AutomationML (Automation Markup Language) data (Barth: [0029], the first and/or the second process module description comprise a description file in an Automation Markup Language format, in particular according to the MTP standard).
Pedigo and Barth are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, manufacturing automation system. 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 Pedigo using the teachings of Barth to include Automation Markup Language. It would provide Pedigo’s method with enhanced capabilities of optimize the operation performance efficiently.
As for claim 29, Pedigo-Fenker-Barth discloses: wherein machine data for controlling the processing machine to which the processing step is assigned are generated from the processing data, for which the processing machine communicates the machine data required for its operation to a data processing system via a data interface (Pedigo: [0029], Computer system 50 also may include a work cell controller 54. Work cell controller 54 may provide an interface between schedule controller 52 and machine controller 56 and may control the operation of one or more work cells 30 within manufacturing system 20).
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 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
Prosecution Insights