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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12071189 B2 (hereinafter as “Pat_189”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by patent claim 1.
Table has been created below to compare claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the Pat_189.
Instant application
Pat_189
1. A method comprising:
assembling one or more systems associated with a modular vehicle subassembly (MVS) onto a vehicle frame;
testing and verifying at least one of the one or more systems; and
assigning and storing a vehicle identification number (VIN) for the MVS in an onboard controller integrated with at least one of the one or more systems, wherein a central control station directs the MVS through a plurality of subsequent assembly stations as a function of the VIN assigned to the MVS, and wherein the MVS moves through the plurality of subsequent assembly stations untethered
A method of manufacturing a modular vehicle subassembly (MVS), the method comprising:
assembling a propulsion system and drive system onto a vehicle frame;
assembling a suspension system and wheels onto the vehicle frame;
assembling a steering system and a braking system onto the vehicle frame;
assembling an electrical distribution system onto the vehicle frame;
testing and verifying at least one of the drive system, the suspension system, the steering system, the braking system, and the propulsion system;
integrating an onboard controller with the propulsion system, the steering system, and the braking system, wherein the onboard controller is configured to command the propulsion system, the steering system, and the braking system such the MVS is operable to move untethered through a top hat assembly line during assembly of a top hat on the MVS; and
assigning and storing a vehicle identification number (VIN) for the MVS in the onboard controller, wherein a central control station directs the MVS through a plurality of subsequent assembly stations as a function of the VIN assigned to the MVS.
In the table above, all matching elements of the claim limitations are underlined.
As illustrated in the table above, claim 1 of Pat_192 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, it has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Similarly, claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of instant application are also anticipated by claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of Pat_189 respectively.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
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, 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells (US 2020/0140028 A1, hereinafter as “Wells”) in view of Faga (US 2022/0055701 A1, hereinafter as “Faga”), and in further view of Walt (US 2016/0291578 A1, hereinafter as “Walt”).
Regarding claim 19, Wells teaches:
A method comprising:
assembling one or more systems associated with a modular vehicle subassembly (MVS) onto a vehicle frame (FIG.s 1 and 4, and [0015]: “The partially assembled BEV 12 is a partially assembled autonomous vehicle and includes a steering assembly 18 for steering the partially assembled BEV, a propulsion system 20 for propelling the BEV 12, a vehicle battery 22 for supplying electricity to, among other things, the propulsion system 20”; And [0017]: “The propulsion system 20 includes one or more electric motors configured to receive electric power from the vehicle battery 22”. All these teach that the partially assembled vehicle 12, i.e., a modular vehicle subassembly (MVS), comprises a propulsion system and a drive system, i.e., a propulsion system and a drive system are assembled onto a vehicle frame of the vehicle 12);
wherein the onboard controller (controller 24 in FIG. 4) is configured to command the one or more systems such that the MVS is operable to move untethered through a assembly line during assembly of the MVS ([0015]: “The vehicle controller 24 is in electronic communication with the steering assembly 18 and the propulsion system 20, allowing the vehicle controller 24 to control the steering assembly 18 and the propulsion system 20. The autonomous vehicle guidance system 10 leverages the steering assembly 18 and propulsion system 20 of the partially assembled BEV 12 to autonomously transport through the assembly process without the need of conveyor systems”).
Wells teaches all the limitations except testing and verifying at least one of the one or more systems via a tether connection; removing the tether connection; and testing the one or more systems such that control of the one or more systems and an onboard controller integrated with at least one of the one or more systems are verified; and the onboard controller is configured to command the MVS to move untethered through a top hat assembly line during assembly of a top hat on the MVS.
However, Faga teaches in an analogous art:
testing the one or more systems such that control of the one or more systems are verified ([0062]: “Further, the assembled vehicle may be tested (step 503). Testing may include but is not limited to mechanical and/or electrical testing”. This teaches to test and verify the vehicle);
the MVS is to move through a top hat assembly line during assembly of a top hat on the MVS (FIG. 1 and [0049]: “A general assembly line will marry the skateboard structure to the upper body top hat at 106 and install wiring, electronics, carpet, trim, seats, exterior, and other components”. This teaches the vehicle goes through an assembly line wherein a top hat is assembled during assembly process).
Since Wells teaches an onboard controller to control the vehicle, the teaching of Faga for testing and verifying the assembled vehicle can be incorporated into Wells to test and verify the one of more system of the MVS and the onboard controller controlling the MVS. And also since Wells teaches to control the MVS to move autonomously and untethered through an assembly line, and since Faga teaches a braking system which is to stop a MVS when needed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wells based on the teaching of Faga, to make the method to further comprise testing the one or more systems such that control of the one or more systems and an onboard controller integrated with at least one of the one or more systems are verified, wherein the onboard controller is configured to command the MVS to move untethered through a top hat assembly line during assembly of a top hat on the MVS. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help enable “efficient manufacture” of a vehicle, as Faga suggests in [0002].
Wells-Faga teaches all the limitations except testing and verifying at least one of the one or more systems via a tether connection; and removing the tether connection.
However, Walt teaches in an analogous art:
testing and verifying a test article via a tether connection; removing the tether connection ([0035]: “FIG. 2 illustrates a system according to embodiments presented herein. According to such embodiments, the system can include one or more conveyor assemblies 20, 21, 22, 23, with one or more test stations 11, 12. The test stations 11, 12 can include an electronic control unit 41, 51 which can be connected via wired or wireless connection to a central computer and central controller 30 that can communicate with the test station control units 41, 51 to monitor and control the system. The test stations 11, 12 can additionally include a detachable connector/adaptor/plug 42, 52 that can be removably connected to the test article and an electronic display 43, 53 that can visually present information to an operator or attendant at the test station”. This teaches to test and verity the article using a wired tethered connection and detach/remove the testing connector after the testing is done).
Since Wells teaches to move the MVS untethered, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wells-Faga based on the teaching of Walt, to make the method to further comprise testing and verifying at least one of the one or more systems via a tether connection; and removing the tether connection. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help enable and facilitate the testing, as Walt suggests in [0035].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells in view of Faga and Walt, and in further view of Witkowski (US 2004/0110472 A1, hereinafter as “Witkowski”).
Regarding claim 20, according to Applicant’s disclosure in paragraph [0058] of the specification, “the phrase at least one of A, B and C should be construed to mean a logical (A OR B OR C).” Therefore, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation of claim 20 is interpreted as including a scenario wherein the transient data are performance data of the MVS.
Regarding claim 20, Wells-Faga-Walt teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends, but do not teach the onboard controller transmits transient data to an offboard controller, the transient data being at least one of a trouble code of the MVS, assembly testing data of the MVS, and performance data of the MVS, the performance data being of at least.
However, Witkowski teaches in an analogous art:
the onboard module (module 40 in FIG. 3) transmits transient data to an offboard controller (computer/monitoring system 36 in FIG. 3), the transient data being performance data of the MVS, the performance data being of at least one component of the one or more systems (FIG. 3 and [0056-0057]: “The module 40 specific options that its associated can be programmed to include information regarding the vehicle 14 is to include. Such options could comprise …powertrain options or any other equipment that will be needed to complete the manufacture of that particular vehicle 14… Information regarding the options that each particular vehicle 141-14n, is then transmitted via the wireless communications link to the computer/monitoring system 36”. This teaches the onboard module 40 transmits performance data of the vehicle to the offboard controller 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Wells-Faga-Walt based on the teaching of Witkowski, to make the method wherein the onboard controller transmits transient data to an offboard controller, the transient data being performance data of the MVS, the performance data being of at least one component of the one or more systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help enable the testing to “save significant costs associated with manually removing” the defective component detected at later assembly stage, as Witkowski teaches in [0059].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double-patenting rejections set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SVERDLOV (US 2022/0089237 A1): teaches a vehicle assembly production line using robots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES CAI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights