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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 30 October 2024. Claims 1-8 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-013988, filed on 01 February 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 October 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
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.
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 control command unit in Claims 1 and 7;
The structure of the control command unit is a processor (see para 0015 of the specification).
an information acquisition unit in Claims 1 and 7;
The structure of the information acquisition unit is a processor (see para 0015, para 0019 of the specification).
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.
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 § 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 2-3 and 5-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the first information about a failure of the stop assembly at the second stop target position is acquired”, while claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites “the first information about a failure of the stop assembly at the first stop target position is acquired”. It is not clear if “the first information” recited in claim 2 is the same “information” as “the first information” recited in claim 1 or is a different information. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “a second information about a failure of the stop assembly at the second stop target position is acquired” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 3 recites “the first information about a success of the stop assembly at the second stop target position is acquired” while claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites “the first information about a failure of the stop assembly at the first stop target position is acquired”. It is not clear if “the first information” recited in claim 3 is the same “information” as “the first information” recited in claim 1 or is a different information. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “a second information about a success of the stop assembly at the second stop target position is acquired” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 5 recites “the component has been retracted to a position at which the component is not in contact with the mobile body at a time point before movement of the mobile body to the second stop target position is started” which is ambiguous. It is not clear “at a time point before movement of the mobile body to the second stop target position is started” is limiting “retracted” OR “not in contact”. The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “the component has been retracted to a position, at the position, the component is not in contact with the mobile body at a time point before movement of the mobile body to the second stop target position is started” (i.e. “at a time point before…” is a timing for “not in contact”) for the purpose of examination.
Claim 6 recites “the component has been retracted to a position at which the component is not in contact with the mobile body while the mobile body is moving to the second stop target position” which is ambiguous. It is not clear “while the mobile body is moving…” is limiting “retracted” OR “not in contact”. The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “the component has been retracted to a position, at the position, the component is not in contact with the mobile body while the mobile body is moving to the second stop target position” (i.e. “when…” is a timing for “not in contact”) for the purpose of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaphengst (US20230145508).
As to claims 1, 7 and 8, Kaphengst teaches a control device, a system and a control method that controls assembly of a component to a mobile body that is able to travel through unattended driving in a process of manufacturing the mobile body (Kaphengst para 0004: …a partially assembled vehicle that autonomously transports itself through its own assembly process…; para 0034-0036, para 0041), the control device comprising:
a control command unit that instructs the mobile body to stop at a first stop target position at which stop assembly is to be executed, the stop assembly being assembly of the component to the mobile body that has been stopped (Kaphengst para 0043: …the central platform controller 108 is configured to adapt to each new assembly component and integrate a variety of additional vehicle components, as added at one or more assembly stations…; para 0057-0058: …the controller circuit 104 commands the drive systems 106 to propel and steer ( e.g., via path 208) the partially assembled vehicle 100 through the sequence of the plurality of assembly stations…At each assembly station, an assembly associated with the assembly station is performed… ); and
an information acquisition unit that acquires first information as information about whether the stop assembly is successful (Kaphengst para 00058-0059: Upon detection of completion of the assembly, the controller circuit 104 runs a respective in-station diagnostic (test) to determine whether the assembly was a pass (a success) or a failure, also see para 0068, Fig. 3), wherein
the control command unit further instructs the mobile body to move to a second stop target position at which the stop assembly is to be executed again, when the first information about a failure of the stop assembly at the first stop target position is acquired (Kaphengst para 0058-0059: … responsive to a fail at an assembly station, the controller circuit 104 may modify or interrupt the sequence, such as, to proceed to a repair station 202…the external fleet control source 150 may override the constructed sequence to take the partially assembled vehicle 100 to a designated repair station… swapping out old revisions of a vehicle component…).
As to claim 2, Kaphengst teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein
when the first information about a failure of the stop assembly at the second stop target position is acquired, the control command unit executes at least one of:
instructing the mobile body to continue a stopped state;
instructing a following mobile body as another mobile body traveling following the mobile body to decelerate or stop; and
notifying an administrator of the failure of the stop assembly at the second stop target position (Kaphengst para 0005:…the assembly associated with the assembly station is incomplete upon failing the respective in-station diagnostic test; alerting the external fleet control source to an incomplete assembly…,also see claim 2).
As to claim 4, Kaphengst teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein
the second stop target position is specified using second information as information about a position at which an assembly device that executes the stop assembly attempted the stop assembly at the first stop target position (Kaphengst para 0059-0060: the external fleet control source 150 may override the constructed sequence to take the partially assembled vehicle 100 to a designated repair station. Examples of this scenario may include swapping out old revisions of a vehicle component…there will likely be many more assembly stations and multiple repair stations).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaphengst in view of Nakagawa (US5509190).
As to claim 3, Kaphengst teaches the control device according to claim 1.
Kaphengst does not teach when the first information about a success of the stop assembly at the second stop target position is acquired, the control command unit instructs a following mobile body as another mobile body traveling following the mobile body to stop at the second stop target position.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nakagawa teaches a wheel kick-out mechanism 250 is provided ahead of the truck 100. The wheel kick-out mechanism 250 is provided for receiving the wheel 8 which has been failed to be mounted by the wheel mounting mechanism 170, from the wheel mounting mechanism 170 and for bringing out the received wheel 8 to the back-up station… (see at least Nakagawa col 11, lines 45-60).
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 Kaphengst so as to include when the first information about a success of the stop assembly at the second stop target position is acquired, the control command unit instructs a following mobile body as another mobile body traveling following the mobile body to stop at the second stop target position in view of Nakagawa et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that when the wheels failed to be mounted by the wheel mounting mechanism, bringing out the received wheel 8 to the back-up station of Nakagawa can be used in Kaphengst, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Kaphengst and Nakagawa because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a more reliable assembly system with a back-up station so that the vehicle production will not be affected when one of the assembly station fails.
As to claim 5, Kaphengst teaches the control device according to claim 1.
Nakagawa further teaches the component has been retracted to a position at which the component is not in contact with the mobile body at a time point before movement of the mobile body to the second stop target position is started (Nakagawa col 11, lines 45-60: …the wheel kick-out mechanism 250 is provided for receiving the wheel 8 which has been failed to be mounted by the wheel mounting mechanism 170, from the wheel mounting mechanism 170 and for bringing out the received wheel 8 to the back-up station).
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 Kaphengst so as to include the component has been retracted to a position at which the component is not in contact with the mobile body at a time point before movement of the mobile body to the second stop target position is started in view of Nakagawa et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Kaphengst and Nakagawa because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a more reliable assembly system with a back-up station so that the vehicle production will not be affected when one of the assembly station fails.
As to claim 6, Kaphengst teaches the control device according to claim 1.
Nakagawa further teaches the component has been retracted to a position at which the component is not in contact with the mobile body while the mobile body is moving to the second stop target position (Nakagawa col 11, lines 45-60: …the wheel kick-out mechanism 250 is provided for receiving the wheel 8 which has been failed to be mounted by the wheel mounting mechanism 170, from the wheel mounting mechanism 170 and for bringing out the received wheel 8 to the back-up station).
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 Kaphengst so as to include the component has been retracted to a position at which the component is not in contact with the mobile body while the mobile body is moving to the second stop target position in view of Nakagawa et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Kaphengst and Nakagawa because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a more reliable assembly system with a back-up station so that the vehicle production will not be affected when one of the assembly station fails.
Examiner’s Notes
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HONGYE LIANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664