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 7/22/2026. Claims 1-8 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 5 are amended. Claims 6-8 are newly added. Claim 1 is independent claim. Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Summary of claims
3. Claims 1-8 are pending,
Claims 1, 5 are amended,
Claims 6-8 are newly added,
Claim 1 is independent claim,
Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Remarks
4. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 7/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive in view of new rejection ground(s).
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.
3. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam Dunigan (US Publication 20220342401 A1, hereinafter Dunigan), and in view of Shailendra Moyal et al (US Publication 20240134340 A1, hereinafter Moyal), and Mario Harz et al (US Publication 20250238027 A1, hereinafter Harz).
As for independent claim 1, Dunigan discloses: A system for managing operation of a line composed of a plurality of cooperating work subjects (Abstract, Systems and methods for production line optimization), the system comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory coupled to or integrated in the at least one processor; and a plurality of instructions stored in the at least one memory and executable by the at least one processor, wherein the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to execute ([0045], The production line analyzer 112 may include a processor 116, and a communication module 118, that couples to each PLC 108 (which includes a respective processor and communication module) via a communication layer 120): setting, for each work subject of the plurality of cooperating work subjects, an intensity that decreases at a speed corresponding to a work speed ([0010], determining optimal equipment speed set-points as a function of reliability; [0013], a bottleneck analyzer that formulates speed, downtime, and outright bottleneck determinations; [0014], optimal equipment parameters, including recipes, speeds, and/or configurations; [0085], decreasing an effective speed of the equipment or conveyor; [0090], by tracking and documenting the speed setpoint changes, the rate analyzer may compare the controlled speed setpoint 714 against one or more critical thresholds 720 defining upper and/or lower bounds of a controlled parameter value), recovers by a recovery action, and is given a lower limit value ([0017], allowing for simulation and evaluation of potential maintenance solutions towards fixing production lines and/or equipment; please note maintenance is a recovery action),… receiving a target handling plan for the line ([0115], This prioritized list may also be based on a desired capital expenditure, so as to allow the line operator to achieve a desired cost-spend in operating the production line), creating an operation plan including at least the working speed and a timing of the recovery action ([0010], simulating package format/production line configuration changes to determine return on investment and optimal production scheduling) by using a simulation model obtained by modeling the line so that the target handling plan is achieved ([0092], a simulation tool, described below, to model and evaluate output production line setpoints output by the various analyzers; [0203], modifying an initial model of the production line based on the equipment data to yield a simulated production line model; simulating, using the simulated production line model a plurality of potential modifications to the production line; and, outputting a prioritized list of the potential modifications based on the optimization rules) while maintaining the intensity at the lower limit value or more, and allowing the intensity to temporarily decrease to less than the lower limit value in creation of the operation plan in response to the target handling plan exceeding a predetermined reference value ([0086], the rate analyzer 700 determines, for a given equipment, an optimal speed (e.g., a most effective speed) equal to about 75% of the machine's maximum speed; [0089], if the system determines that machine or conveyor availability under current recipe parameters exceeds equipment or conveyor availability under currently defined ideal recipe parameters, the system may automatically re-define the ideal recipe parameters using the current recipe parameters).
Dunigan does not clearly disclose the intensity represents a physical intensity or a mental intensity when said each work subject is a worker, or represents a mechanical intensity when said each work subject is a work machine, in an analogous art of simulating manufacture process data, Moyal discloses: the intensity represents a physical intensity or a mental intensity when said each work subject is a worker, or represents a mechanical intensity when said each work subject is a work machine (Moyal: [0035], identify a set of critical zones corresponding to that particular machine and an intensity level (e.g., high, medium, low) of each respective critical zone of the set of critical zones; [0063], the computer identifies a set of critical zones corresponding to the machine and an intensity level of each respective critical zone of the set of critical zones based on the task performed by the machine, the operating context of the machine, the aggregate energy of the machine, and the area in the industrial machine environment affected by propagation of released energy from the machine; [0064], The computer, using the augmented reality device, alerts the worker of a type of safety equipment to be worn by the worker in the particular critical zone of the set of critical zones corresponding to the machine based on the intensity level of that particular critical zone, worker restrictions as to different types of worker activities in that particular critical zone, and worker level of attention needed to perform job duties in that particular critical zone; please note the system may determine intensity level of the machine and the worker, for a machine, intensity is related to machine operation parameters, for a worker, intensity is related to worker stress/mental status while performing job duties);
Dunigan and Moyal are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring, simulating and improving production line data. 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 Dunigan using the teachings of Moyal to include considering operating context including machine intensity status and worker intensity status. It would provide Dunigan’s system with enhanced capabilities of improving safety in the machine environment.
Further, Dunigan discloses a production line optimization system including a simulation tool but does not clearly disclose a simulation model, Moyal discloses a virtual model to simulate a physical object (Moyal: [0011]), in addition, in an analogous art of production line optimization system, Harz discloses: using a simulation model obtained by modeling the line so that the target handling plan is achieved (Harz: [0101], The state machine diagram of each individual machine of a production line may be used for a simulation of the production line. For example, a simulation model of the EPU may be constructed based on the state machines of machines of the EPU. The state machine diagrams may model the behaviour of a single object, such as machine speed specifying the different states of speed to which these machines can go during production, based on events);
Dunigan and Harz are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring production line data and optimization production process. 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 Dunigan using the teachings of Harz to include using a simulation model of production line. It would provide Dunigan’s system with enhanced capabilities of optimized production lines with optimal speed and other parameters.
As for claim 2, Dunigan-Moyal-Harz discloses: wherein the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to further execute creating the operation plan using the simulation model so that the intensity is recovered to the lower limit value or more by a time when a predetermined period elapses after the intensity is decreased to be less than the lower limit value (Dunigan: [0086], the rate analyzer 700 determines, for a given equipment, an optimal speed (e.g., a most effective speed) equal to about 75% of the machine's maximum speed; [0089], if the system determines that machine or conveyor availability under current recipe parameters exceeds equipment or conveyor availability under currently defined ideal recipe parameters, the system may automatically re-define the ideal recipe parameters using the current recipe parameters).
As for claim 3, Dunigan-Moyal-Harz discloses: wherein the simulation model includes a digital twin that reproduces the line in a virtual space, and the setting the intensity includes setting the intensity individually for each work subject based on data obtained from each work subject in a real space (Harz: Abstract, based on speed set points for the plurality of machines, calculating, by a digital twin speed management component, at least one new speed set point for at least one machine of the plurality of machines of the production line, based on the determined plurality of statuses and the respective configuration used for the digital twin speed management component, and analysing performance of the production line based on speed set points for the plurality of machines, including the calculated at least one new speed set point for at least one machine of the plurality of machines, and, based on the analysis, deploying a configuration of the plurality of configurations of the speed management component for controlling the plurality of machines of the production line).
As for claim 4, Dunigan-Moyal-Harz discloses: wherein the creating the operation plan includes creating the operation plan individually for each work subject as long as the target handling plan is achieved (Harz: [0101], The state machine diagram of each individual machine of a production line may be used for a simulation of the production line).
As for claim 5, Dunigan-Moyal-Harz discloses: wherein the setting the intensity individually for each work subject includes setting at least one of a maximum value of the intensity, a rate of decrease of the intensity with respect to the work speed, or the lower limit value individually for each work subject (Dunigan: [0082], the rate analyzer 700 analyzes machine speed data and determines that a equipment set to a max speed will perform with less efficiency as compared to efficiency achieved by the same equipment when set to a lower speed).
As for claim 6, Dunigan-Moyal-Harz discloses: wherein the setting the intensity individually for each work subject includes setting at least one of a maximum value of the intensity, a rate of decrease of the intensity with respect to the work speed, or the lower limit value individually for each work subject (Moyal: [0063], the computer identifies a set of critical zones corresponding to the machine and an intensity level of each respective critical zone of the set of critical zones based on the task performed by the machine, the operating context of the machine, the aggregate energy of the machine, and the area in the industrial machine environment affected by propagation of released energy from the machine; please note the intensity data of the machine may be an operating parameter of the machine).
As for claim 7, Dunigan-Moyal-Harz discloses: wherein the intensity is defined as an evaluation value for each work subject and the intensity represents the mental intensity when said each work subject is the worker (Moyal: [0064], The computer, using the augmented reality device, alerts the worker of a type of safety equipment to be worn by the worker in the particular critical zone of the set of critical zones corresponding to the machine based on the intensity level of that particular critical zone, worker restrictions as to different types of worker activities in that particular critical zone, and worker level of attention needed to perform job duties in that particular critical zone; please note the system may determine intensity level of the machine and the worker, for a machine, intensity is related to machine operation parameters, for a worker, intensity is related to worker stress/mental status while performing job duties)
As for claim 8, Dunigan-Moyal-Harz discloses: wherein the intensity is defined as an evaluation value for each work subject and the intensity represents the mechanical intensity when said each work subject is the work machine (Moyal: [0063], the computer identifies a set of critical zones corresponding to the machine and an intensity level of each respective critical zone of the set of critical zones based on the task performed by the machine, the operating context of the machine, the aggregate energy of the machine, and the area in the industrial machine environment affected by propagation of released energy from the machine; please note the intensity data of the machine may be an operating parameter of the machine).
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