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 .
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 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 will be treated as a representative claim and reads as follows:
A control device comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires production plan information indicating a production plan for a moving body that is produced by self-propelled production, for producing the moving body using movement of the moving body through unmanned driving;
an identifying unit that uses the production plan information to identify a region for deploying at least one work object of a production facility that is used in the self-propelled production, and a worker that executes a particular task in the self-propelled production; and
an instruction unit that instructs a manager to move the work object to the region identified by the identifying unit.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. See MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A control device comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires production plan information indicating a production plan for a moving body that is produced by self-propelled production, for producing the moving body using movement of the moving body through unmanned driving;
an identifying unit that uses the production plan information to identify a region for deploying at least one work object of a production facility that is used in the self-propelled production, and a worker that executes a particular task in the self-propelled production [mental process/step]; and
an instruction unit that instructs a manager to move the work object to the region identified by the identifying unit.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “uses… to identify…” encompasses a person looking at collected data and forming a simple judgment, in this case identification of a relevant region and a particular “worker”. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A control device comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires production plan information indicating a production plan for a moving body that is produced by self-propelled production, for producing the moving body using movement of the moving body through unmanned driving [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
an identifying unit [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] that uses the production plan information to identify a region for deploying at least one work object of a production facility that is used in the self-propelled production, and a worker that executes a particular task in the self-propelled production; and
an instruction unit that instructs a manager to move the work object to the region identified by the identifying unit [post-solution activity (data transmission)].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “an acquisition unit…” and “an instruction unit…”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely use generic computing components to perform the operations. In particular, the acquisition operations are recited at a high level of generality, as a general means of gathering data, such that it amounts to no more than mere data gathering. The instruction unit merely provides an instruction to a manager unit for later use, but falls short of actually executing the operations of the mobile object to actually move, and instead merely transmits data in the form of instructions, such that it amounts to mere data transmission. The recited “identifying unit…” is recited with a high level of generality as a generic computing component to performing a generic computer function, such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an identification unit to perform the identification amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, as discussed above, the additional elements of acquisition and instruction amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible
Dependent claims 3 and 5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, these dependent claims recite additional identifications, which are further abstract concepts, or further units which are generically described that perform this identification. Therefore, dependent claims 3 and 5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Independent claim 2 and dependent claims 4 and 6 recite similar features to independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3 and 5 and therefore are found not patent eligible under the same rationale.
Therefore, claims 1-6 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
In particular regards to dependent claims 7 and 8, these claims clearly recite control of the moving body which is understood to be based upon the instructions given to the moving body, such that these claims integrate the abstract concept into practical application. Therefore dependent claims 7 and 8 are found to be subject matter eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Vestal et al. (US 20140365258).
In regards to claim 1, Vestal teaches a control device comprising: (Fig 1, 2, 5-12.)
an acquisition unit that acquires production plan information indicating a production plan for a moving body that is produced by self-propelled production, for producing the moving body using movement of the moving body through unmanned driving; ([0089], [0092] job management system for facility determines available robots and assigns the robots to job requests. [0101], [0111] when the robot receives a job assignment, the robot autonomously navigates itself using its locomotion system to the location of the job assignment as defined by map information, for example to a packaging area or the like. This is acquiring production plan information indicating a production plan for a moving body produced by self-propelled production through unmanned driving, where the job management system serves as an acquisition unit or a component of the robot the receives the job from the job management system serves as an acquisition unit.)
an identifying unit that uses the production plan information to identify a region for deploying at least one work object of a production facility that is used in the self-propelled production, and a worker that executes a particular task in the self-propelled production; ([0083], [0092], [0101], [0105], [0107], [0111], [0112] queue manager component of job management system selects particular robot to perform particular job request and carry out physical job operations, where the job request may come as both a job location and job operation, and the location may be an area, the robot then autonomously navigates itself to the job area, and robot is further selected based on having appropriate implements required to perform the job. Robot payload is operated through signals to operate implements of the robot according to the job request and pick up and deliver items, products, materials, and the like. This selects a particular robot to perform operations and assigns that robot to a particular location and area, where an implement or tool of the robot is a worker that transports a payload which is a work object. [0095] job assignments for each robot are then identified and stored within database.) and
an instruction unit that instructs a manager to move the work object to the region identified by the identifying unit. ([0083] [0112] upon receiving job request, robot controller commands robot to travel according to job request and perform job operations at corresponding locations, including transporting items, products, materials, and the like.)
In regards to claim 2, Vestal teaches a control device comprising: (Fig 1, 2, 5-12.)
an acquisition unit that acquires production plan information indicating a production plan for a moving body that is produced by self-propelled production, for producing the moving body using movement of the moving body through unmanned driving; ([0089], [0092] job management system for facility determines available robots and assigns the robots to job requests. [0101], [0111] when the robot receives a job assignment, the robot autonomously navigates itself using its locomotion system to the location of the job assignment as defined by map information, for example to a packaging area or the like. This is acquiring production plan information indicating a production plan for a moving body produced by self-propelled production through unmanned driving, where the job management system serves as an acquisition unit or a component of the robot the receives the job from the job management system serves as an acquisition unit.)
an identifying unit that uses the production plan information to identify a region for deploying a production facility that is used for the self-propelled production and that is movable by the unmanned driving; ([0083], [0092], [0101], [0105], [0107], [0111], [0112] queue manager component of job management system selects particular robot to perform particular job request and carry out physical job operations, where the job request may come as both a job location and job operation, and the location may be an area, the robot then autonomously navigates itself to the job area, and robot is further selected based on having appropriate implements required to perform the job. Robot payload is operated through signals to operate implements of the robot according to the job request and pick up and deliver items, products, materials, and the like. This selects a particular robot to perform operations and assigns that robot to a particular location and area, where an implement or tool of the robot is a production facility that transports a payload which is a work object. [0095] job assignments for each robot are then identified and stored within database.) and
a facility control unit that controls operation of the production facility such that the production facility moves to the region identified by the identifying unit. ([0083] [0112] upon receiving job request, robot controller commands robot to travel according to job request and perform job operations at corresponding locations, including transporting items, products, materials, and the like, which moves the tools and implements of the payload of the robot along with the robot.)
In regards to claim 3, Vestal teaches the control device according to claim 1, further comprising a detection unit that detects that the production plan has been changed, wherein when the detection unit detects that the production plan has been changed, the identifying unit identifies the region using the production plan information that is changed. ([0114] robots may be rerouted to avoid obstacles and follow new route, thereby adjusting production plan. [0097], [0098], [0124] robot is selected to perform task based on status of the robot and status of the job may be updated as the job is performed, including canceling the job assignment as required based on, for example, detecting an item assigned to be picked up is not present at a pick up location in a region around the robot and the robot is then made available again for further jobs assigning the robot to those further jobs’ corresponding areas. These all detect that a production plan has changed and updates the corresponding area.)
In regards to claim 4, Vestal teaches the control device according to claim 2.
Claim 4 recites a device having substantially the same features of claim 3 above, therefore claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
In regards to claim 5, Vestal teaches the control device according to claim 1, further comprising a deciding unit that decides a route when the moving body moves by the unmanned driving, and that is one or the other deciding unit of ([0105] job management system may distribute jobs including requests that specify job locations without specifying job operations, requests that specify job operations without specifying job locations, and requests that specify both job locations and job operations. [0110], [0112] when robot receives job assignment to perform job request, the robot is controlled by robot base controller to navigate and drive itself to a certain location and perform assigned operations at that area by generating a path to follow. The robot controller serves as a deciding unit that generates a route for the robot based on a received job request.)
a first deciding unit that decides the route based on the region identified by the identifying unit, ([0105], [0110], [0112] job requests may identify location of job operation and when the location is identified, the robot is navigated to the specified location by the controller acting the as a first deciding unit.) and
a second deciding unit that decides the route using the production plan information before the region is identified by the identifying unit, wherein ([0102], [0103], [0105], [0110], [0112] job requests may only identify job operation, without identifying location of job operation, and the vehicle is then navigated by the robot controller before a particular area is selected through the queue manager to the nearest corresponding location. This places the robot controller to operate as a second deciding unit.)
when the route is decided by the second deciding unit, the identifying unit identifies the region taking into consideration the route decided by the second deciding unit. ([0102], [0103], [0105], [0110], [0112] job requests may only identify job operation, without identifying location of job operation, and the vehicle is then routed by the robot controller to the corresponding nearest location and [0095] job assignments for each robot are then identified and stored within database, which includes identifying the corresponding location of each robot.)
In regards to claim 6, Vestal teaches the control device according to claim 2.
Claim 6 recites a device having substantially the same features of claim 5 above, therefore claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
In regards to claim 7, Vestal teaches the control device according to claim 5, further comprising a moving body control unit that controls operation of the moving body such that the moving body moves along the route decided by the deciding unit. ([0111], [0112] robot automatically drives itself along route based on job assignment using locomotion system based on determinations from robot controller which also serves as moving body control unit.)
In regards to claim 8, Vestal teaches the control device according to claim 6.
Claim 8 recites a device having substantially the same features of claim 7 above, therefore claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deutscher et al. (US 20160313740) teaches navigating vehicles through a factory environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661