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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/9/2025 and 10/14/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 4-6, 12-14, 18-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4-6, 12-14, 18-20 are replete with antecedent basis issues for many of the claimed elements. Applicant is encouraged to review and correct the antecedent basis for the necessary elements starting with “the”. In claims 4, 12, and 18 there are “a set of winding machines” that have multiple instances provided. It is unclear if these instances are distinct or the same instances. For purposes of examination these will be interpreted as being a subset of machines among the entirety of the machines in the workshop.
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 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method, claims 9-20 are directed to a product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES). The examiner has identified method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to product claims 9 and 15.
Regarding claim 1 (and 9 and 15), the claim recites, in part, “determining…scheduling”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Scheduling the vehicle is considered an algorithm, use of algorithms is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Outputting the determination as a schedule is considered extra solution activity. The additional element of a “computer” is just a generic computing device. Invocation of generic computing devices to perform or aid the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application because the claim does not
include limitations that purport the improvement to the function of a computer or another technology,
apply the abstract idea by way of a particular machine, or effect a tangible transformation in state of a
particular article (MPEP 2106.05). Rather, the abstract ideas are instead merely generally linked to a
particular technical field (MPEP 2106.04(3)).
Regarding claim 2 (and 10 and 16), the claim recites, in part, “determining…”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3 (and 11 and 17), the claim recites, in part, “determining…”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4 (and 12 and 18), the claim recites, in part, “determining…”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5 (and 13 and 19), the claim recites, in part, “when the AGV is…if a time distance…then based on…determining…”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6 (and 14 and 20), the claim recites, in part, “determining…”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites, in part, “determining…”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites, in part, “scheduling…”. The limitations of determining and generating (such as scheduling, as previously established), when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-10, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111924664B Wang ("Wang", machine translation provided) in view of US5169271A Yamashita ("Yamashita").
As per claims 1, 9, 15, Wang teaches the limitations of the method and products:
A doffing scheduling method for a yarn spindle product, applied in an automatic doffing system which is in connection with a plurality of automated guided vehicles (AGVs), the AGVs being deployed in different vertical spaces within a target workshop, and comprising: determining, based on time-related information of doffing the yarn spindle product in all or part of winding machines in the target workshop, a target doffing vehicle corresponding to a first winding machine in the target workshop from the AGVs; and scheduling the target doffing vehicle to complete a doffing task of the yarn spindle product in the first winding machine. (Wang at least the abstract, claim 2: “doffing robot”) *Examiner’s note: Wang teaches a plurality of doffing robots, of which the BRI can include at least AGV and or other vehicle types.
Wang does not disclose:
One of the target doffing vehicles being an overhead rail doffing vehicle
Yamashita teaches the aforementioned limitation (Yamashita at least the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Yamashita with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to carry yarn away from a machine while protecting the layers of yarn from damage.
Regarding claims 2, 10, 16, Wang in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Wang additionally teaches:
wherein the determining, based on the time-related information of doffing the yarn spindle product in all or part of the winding machines in the target workshop, the target doffing vehicle corresponding to the first winding machine in the target workshop from the AGV and the overhead rail doffing vehicle, comprises: determining whether the AGV is able to serve the first winding machine based on the time-related information of doffing the yarn spindle product in all or part of the winding machines in the target workshop; and determining that the target doffing vehicle corresponding to the first winding machine includes the AGV in the case where the AGV is able to serve the first winding machine. (Wang at least claim 2, claim 4)
Regarding claim 7, Wang in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Wang additionally teaches:
wherein the scheduling the target doffing vehicle to complete the doffing task of the yarn spindle product in the first winding machine comprises: determining, in the case where the target doffing vehicle is the AGV, a travel route of the AGV based on a position of the first winding machine; and scheduling, based on the travel route of the AGV, the AGV to deliver the yarn spindle product from the first winding machine to the yarn receiving station. (Wang at least claim 2: “temporary storage device”)
Regarding claim 8, Wang in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Wang does not disclose:
wherein the scheduling the target doffing vehicle to complete the doffing task of the yarn spindle product in the first winding machine comprises: scheduling, in the case where the target doffing vehicle includes the overhead rail doffing vehicle, the overhead rail doffing vehicle to deliver the yarn spindle product from the first winding machine to the yarn receiving station via a rail based on a position of the first winding machine.
Yamashita teaches the aforementioned limitation (Yamashita at least [0041]: "delivery area…further transport device").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Yamashita with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 1.
Claim(s) 3, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Yamashita in view of US12124240B1 Ghare et al ("Ghare").
Regarding claims 3, 11, 17, Wang in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Wang does not disclose:
determining that the target doffing vehicle corresponding to the first winding machine includes the overhead rail doffing vehicle in the case where the AGV is not able to serve the first winding machine.
Ghare teaches the aforementioned limitation (Ghare at least col 4 lines 20-40: “update task allocation and routes if necessary to optimize overall efficiency, assign charging and idling missions, and enable customers to redistribute robots ”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Ghare with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve various aspects of fleet management for the heterogenous robot fleets at a given facility.
Claim(s) 4, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Yamashita, and Ghare in further view of CN111924659B Xu ("Xu", machine translation provided).
Regarding claims 4, 12, 18, Wang in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Wang does not disclose:
determining the number of winding machines that the AGV is able to serve based on a winding duration of a yarn spindle product to be processed in each winding machine in the target workshop;
Xu teaches the aforementioned limitation (Xu at least the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve production efficiency.
Wang does not disclose:
determining a set machines that are served by the AGV based on the number of machines that the AGV is able to serve and a distance between each machine and a receiving station in the target workshop;
Ghare teaches the aforementioned limitation (Ghare at least claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Ghare with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve various aspects of fleet management for the heterogenous robot fleets at a given facility.
With the aforementioned teachings combined, Wang additionally teaches:
determining that the AGV is able to serve the first winding machine in the case where the set of winding machines served by the AGV includes the first winding machine. (Wang at least the abstract, claim 2)
Claim(s) 5, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Yamashita in view of EP3181501B1 Kawabata ("Kawabata", machine translation provided).
Regarding claims 5, 13, 19, Wang in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Wang does not disclose:
when the AGV is carrying out a doffing task in a second winding machine in the target workshop, if a time distance between current time and dropping time of the first winding machine in the target workshop is less than a first preset duration, then based on at least one of: the number of yarn spindle products to be doffed in the second winding machine, the estimated doffing time of the yarn spindle products to be doffed in the second winding machine, the number of yarn spindle products to be doffed in the first winding machine, the estimated doffing time of the yarn spindle products to be doffed in the first winding machine, available positions for the AGV, or a distance between the AGV and the first winding machine, determining whether the AGV is able to serve the first winding machine.
Kawabata teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kawabata at least [0044]: " a traveling pattern that causes to perform a first task in which the doffing of a first winder unit 11 positioned on one side in the X direction is performed, and then perform a second task in which the doffing of a first winder unit 11 positioned on the other side in the X direction is generated. At this time, if the working areas of the first doffing cart 13 and the second doffing cart 23 overlap when performing the first task, the task sequence interchanges, and the traveling pattern changes to a traveling pattern that causes to perform the first task after the second task").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kawabata with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to prevent doffing vehicle collisions.
Claim(s) 6, 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Yamashita in further view of Xu.
Regarding claims 6, 14, 20, Wang in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Wang does not disclose:
determining, based on the winding duration of the yarn spindle product to be processed in each winding machine in the target workshop, estimated time for each doffing in each winding machine within a target period; determining, based on the estimated time for each doffing in each winding machine within the target period, a doffing time list within the target period, wherein the doffing time list includes multiple doffing times and the winding machine corresponding to each of the multiple doffing times; determining, based on the doffing time list, K winding machines with a doffing time interval less than a second preset duration, where K is an integer greater than or equal to 2; and determining, based on a distance between the first winding machine in the K winding machines and the yarn receiving station, whether the AGV is able to serve the first winding machine.
Xu teaches the aforementioned limitation (Xu at least the abstract, claim 2, “path generating algorithm can also generate the path of the doffing robot during the doffing operation according to the relative distances between the N winders and the doffing robot respectively, such as generating the path from far to near according to the relative distance or generating the path from near to far”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669